Is it time to arm ourselves with weapons?

areyawell

I'd be nervous, from the windows to the walls till the sweat drips down down my balls.
I'd probably use a shotgun and blow his legs off and then make him say woof woof, I'm a stupid dog and kick him in the head until he says it.

CruelCoin

areyawell wrote: »

I'd be nervous, from the windows to the walls till the sweat drips down down my balls.
I'd probably use a shotgun and blow his legs off and then make him say woof woof, I'm a stupid dog and kick him in the head until he says it.

Did you just quote a r'n'b song?

who_me

judgefudge wrote: »

Absolutely amazed at the amount of people suggesting that if they were being burgled they wouldn't stop to ask questions. Since when is killing someone punishment for the crime of burglary?

I agree that thieving is a scumbag crime but certainly not punishable by death. It's the attitude here that I see as the biggest argument against arming civilians.

A gun would only be useful in my eyes to either scare away a criminal or to injure them. The impression I get on here is that people would not wait to be in a position of self defence, where the gun is necessary. Many of you seem to assume that it's ok to shoot and kill "scum" because they are on your property, and god forbid might take some of your stuff?

It's absolutely beyond me.

I genuinely don't mean this as an ad hominem insult, but are you insane? If you woke to find someone fumbling about in your living room, you'd tap them on the shoulder and start asking questions? "Are you taking the games consoles? How about the TV? The TV too? Pity it's a new one..." Perhaps hand them a Burglary Questionaire and a pen* to fill it out.

Am I being trolled here?

(* a cheap pen, obviously).

Wibbs

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

In 2010, African-Americans accounted for 76.2% of murder arrests and Hispanics accounted for 19.3% of murder arrests in Chicago. In other words, 95.5% of murder arrests in Chicago were African-American and Hispanic.

I'm afraid I disagree that "there is no racial element".

So different "races"(though populations would be a more scientific description) are more prone to criminality and murder? Hooookaaaay.

How many educated middle class blacks or hispanics are committing crime compared to underclass whites? Even the middle class blacks are more exposed to their underclass by proximity and by comparison to middle class whites.

These stats are legitimate and my source is good. People can draw their own conclusions.

That you've drawn your own conclusions based on dubious racist preconceptions maybe?

CruelCoin wrote: »

The average Joe Bloggs has no official training in self-defence.

Joe cannot be assumed to be able to disable an intruder effectively, while not posing harm to himself or the intruder.

Given the above, when an intruder has a knife or a gun, the lack of training thrusts you into a kill or be killed situation. One where a centre-mass attack would yield the untrained the greatest likelihood of sucess.

Ask any rational person the simple question "them or you", how do you think they would answer? Then why the surprise when people voice it here?

Well there's also the aspect of whether your average untrained person would actually aim and fire at an intruder standing in front of them. I strongly suspect the majority wouldn't.

mawk

20 gauge rock salt shells for all and I'm pretty happy. No need to kill an intruder if you need to shoot them

Lelantos

Bruthal wrote: »

What if you shoot a 35 year old with 60 convictions, doing exactly the same thing?

It's murder.

bodice ripper

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

Umm, if someone is in your home and "terrorizing" you and your family: yes, they should be shot.

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

666irishguy

Anybody who gets shot or wounded while committing a robbery should just be told the reality of the fact that he would be in perfect working order if he wasn't robbing somebody's property. I live in a relatively rural part of Ireland and there are a lot of old men and women living in fear of being burgled and assaulted by what seems like several gangs operating in a few counties. Many of those elderly people can only sleep at night knowing they have the double barrelled shotgun in the room with them and that it is the only thing that will even the odds for them when some young scumbag is smashing through their house with a knife or a hammer.

bodice ripper

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they might tie you up and beat you,
because they might pull out your toenails,
because they might scald you with boiling water
because they might stab you


because who knows what they're capable of

Now we should shoot people for what they might do? However statistically improbable the acts might be?

TheDoc

bodice ripper wrote: »

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

I don't see why your constantly recycling this point?

It can be easily argued that even as the assailant laid injured, there was still clear and present danger to the safety of the home owner who persisted in neutralising said threat. It is entirely plausible there was fear of a retaliation from the victim.

It can also be easily argued that rational thinking and long term planning was also muted, with the grievous danger and threat that presented the shooter.

Basically, why are you having a stiff one over an intruder being shot dead,. More cotton wool talk for me, which seems to be wrapped around a lot of this forum.

And it normally comes from people never before in the same situation, or having any experience of anything relevant. The same sort of person who will pompously remark how they would never bottle anyone in a fight, or use a weapon in a fight, and never kick a man when he is down, and all this ridiculous crap.

allibastor

Guys, All joking aside, the point remain a vaild one from the states.

If someone makes the conscious choice to break into your house you can assume they are not there to borrow some suger. At that point you dont know what their intention is, it could be to simply rob the place, or do something worse. BUT YOU DONT KNOW:

what you do know is that they have made the choice to break into your house, a place they know is not theirs and to commit some form of felloney.

Your thinking at the time will be tat of who is this person in my house, what do they want and what will they do to me to get it.

if they want to avoid getting shot, stay the hell out of someone elses house.

Thomas20

bodice ripper wrote: »

Now we should shoot people for what they might do? However statistically improbable the acts might be?

No, as another poster said we ask them what is their business in my house, if they respond negatively we run away and hide and wait for gardai to arrive.
We give them all the details they need and they never catch the person trespassing in your property. We then live in fear of another incident.
Or maybe they have an iron bar and beat the **** out of you.

CruelCoin

mawk wrote: »

20 gauge rock salt shells for all and I'm pretty happy. No need to kill an intruder if you need to shoot them

"Deaaan"
*Cue, Sam: smoldering good looks pouty face*

Hamiltonion

Don't agree with shooting an injured man when he was no longer a threat however you you break into someones home and they shoot you well WTF did you expect?

If it's proved someone stood over a wounded burglar and shot them in the head from point blank they should face prosecution too, however if they shot once and happened to hit the intruder in the head / vital organ leading to death then tough titties.

Wouldn't support legalization of semi autos or handguns as they'll more often than not be used to facilitate a crime but I see no problem letting homeowners in rural areas possess a rifle or shotgun - bit different in a city centre apartment


FYI I live in an apartment

Hamiltonion

Further to that in regards ethics

If you encounter an unarmed burglar you shout a warning and tell em to sit down and shut up till guards arrive or you shoot

If the burglar has an iron bar, bat etc you shoot em once and do the same

If they have a fire-arm you open up on em till they stop moving.


Your safety comes 1st in your own home

TheDoc

Hamiltonion wrote: »

Wouldn't support legalization of semi autos or handguns as they'll more often than not be used to facilitate a crime but I see no problem letting homeowners in rural areas possess a rifle or shotgun - bit different in a city centre apartment


FYI I live in an apartment

Am I mistaken in thinking that there is no ban on these?

I'm pretty sure a few of my neighbours, part of shooting clubs, have pistols. Not sure on the semi automatics, if your referring to assault rifles which your probably right.

But I'm pretty sure you can have handguns, actually I'm 100% cause I've seen a neighbours collection, and that is in a housing estate, so I'm sure rural area is even easier.

Lelantos

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

See why I avoid this type of discussion? Already I'm an "it" for posting some non-pc facts about murder rates in Chicago

Try it with a full state, Louisiana & Alabama, same arguement but with a poor & uneducated white population compared to the national average & 2 of the 3 highest gun death states in America, the poor race card cuts both ways

asherbassad

Cora Mahoney wrote: »

Where are your stats and sources for your claims? I provided mine.

Since 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim was black.

In the same period 178 people have been executed where the victim was white and the defendant black.

Also white account for 50% of all murder victims yet 80% of all capital cases involve white victims.

Source: aclu.org

Hamiltonion

TheDoc wrote: »

Am I mistaken in thinking that there is no ban on these?

I'm pretty sure a few of my neighbours, part of shooting clubs, have pistols. Not sure on the semi automatics, if your referring to assault rifles which your probably right.

But I'm pretty sure you can have handguns, actually I'm 100% cause I've seen a neighbours collection, and that is in a housing estate, so I'm sure rural area is even easier.

I don't own a gun so I really couldn't tell you. Unless you're at a gun range every day competing in events you shouldn't be let have a handgun. I'd like a system where if you have anything other than a shotgun or rifle it had to be left locked in your local range much like in Canada. In regards rifles and shotguns I think once you don't have a criminal record (not counting minor **** like speeding or smoking a joint) then getting a rifle or shotgun license should just be a formality.

Cora Mahoney

bodice ripper wrote: »

For some reason, this post was in an appalling Valley Girl voice when i read it.

I have already said i am fine with that. But having neutralized the threat, shooting an injured man as he tried to escape is morally repugnant.

"Should be shot" is weird. Surely you only kill someone if you "must", ie its the only way to ensure you or your family's safety. An injured person running away is not an immediate threat.

You are wrong and keep repeating this ridiculous line in a poor attempt at salvaging your position. You've failed.

Who are you to say "the threat had been neutralized"?

And has already been pointed out ad nauseaum, Nally's mental state, due to the criminal and ongoing torments of his "victim", had been driven past the point of rationality. He hadn't slept in days either, apparently; he was a man on the edge.

And again: I don't give a rats arse about your so called "morality".

Ush1

Brought this case to my mind:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112385/Family-black-teenager-shot-dead-Neighborhood-Watch-went-buy-candy-brother-demands-justice.html

asherbassad

Boombastic wrote: »

Because they might tie you up and beat you,
because they might pull out your toenails,
because they might scald you with boiling water
because they might stab you


because who knows what they're capable of

That being the case then you would also advocate carrying a gun with you everywhere you go because of what people "might" fuckin do.

Bring your shooter to the pub because some bloke MIGHT attack you for talkin to his burd!

Bring it to the supermarket because some beggar might start on you if you don't give him tuppence.

Bring it to the outdoor rock concert because some drunks might take a dislike to you and decide to hang you from a tree.

Because who knows what they're capable of.

macmurchu

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Like how the punishment for burglary is death? Why wouldn't it surprise me with some of the inbalances in sentences being given out in this country.

No we shouldnt arm ourselves with weapons. IMO one of the reasons there is such a problem implementing gun control in America is because they have been so available for hundreds of years that there's now hundreds of millions out amongst the populace. Why would anyone want to be denied a gun knowing that millions of others have them, I wouldnt want to see a similar situation in Ireland.

Find the criminals involved in the burglaries and throw them in a cell with some big baldy bull qu**r for 5 years.

Some protestant minister fella from the north was on the last word with matt cooper on today fm a few years back and said we should bring back public lashings with a whip. Hoooo that'll learn 'em

darkhorse

bodice ripper wrote: »

This person was a clear threat to his safety. But then he shot him again, when he was no longer a threat.

Except that, while Mr Ward was living, he was always go to be a threat to Mr Nally, who was living on his nerves for years.

Boombastic

asherbassad wrote: »

That being the case then you would also advocate carrying a gun with you everywhere you go because of what people "might" fuckin do.

Bring your shooter to the pub because some bloke MIGHT attack you for talkin to his burd!

Bring it to the supermarket because some beggar might start on you if you don't give him tuppence.

Bring it to the outdoor rock concert because some drunks might take a dislike to you and decide to hang you from a tree.

Because who knows what they're capable of.

Yeah, good point:rolleyes:

Thomas20

asherbassad wrote: »

Since 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim was black.

In the same period 178 people have been executed where the victim was white and the defendant black.

Also white account for 50% of all murder victims yet 80% of all capital cases involve white victims.

Source: aclu.org

tumblr_mge7li9U2t1s1psvho1_500.gif

Ush1 wrote: »

Brought this case ot my mind:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112385/Family-black-teenager-shot-dead-Neighborhood-Watch-went-buy-candy-brother-demands-justice.html

Another case of justice being served, and that headline from the dailymail is awesome.
You do realise the picture used in that article is many years old and you can find others on the internet that don't have Treyvon looking so innocent.

Trayvon_Martin.jpg

darkhorse

Lelantos wrote: »

The law in this country states that reasonable force only. If you shoot someone breaking in to rob a ps3, that doesn't count & you go to jail, its that simple

Does that mean if a burglar breaks in to my home, I have to clarify with him what would be his preference in robbing from me, before I make a decision on what course of action I am gonna take. Should I make out an inventory of all belongings with the heading "NOTICE TO INTENDING BURGLARS", and hang it in the hallway.

ghogie91

I will buy a cottage in the country slap bang in the middle of loads of land, have an intruder detection system covering every inch of the perimeter, wait for someone to step on and empty a 50 cal into their eye!

Whos to say they were lost, took a wrong turn, or had intentions to harm me and my family? They are definitely not going to be able to tell anyone

Moral of the story, forget about the guns, if they are killed with a hurley to the head then its more plausible and straight forward as to what happened

darkhorse

Zer0 wrote: »

I have two fists and two legs so that's good enough for me. If someone breaks into my house, depending on the situation as I judge it, I'd either lock myself in a room and call the police to avoid confrontation. But if I had to then yeah, I'd defend myself.

I got two friends, smith and wesson.

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

tumblr_mge7li9U2t1s1psvho1_500.gif



Another case of justice being served, and that headline from the dailymail is awesome.
You do realise the picture used in that article is many years old and you can find others on the internet that don't have Treyvon looking so innocent.

Trayvon_Martin.jpg

lol seriously? Shoot someone even after police tell you not to pursue them?

Doylers

ghogie91 wrote: »

I will buy a cottage in the country slap bang in the middle of loads of land, have an intruder detection system covering every inch of the perimeter, wait for someone to step on and empty a 50 cal into their eye!

Whos to say they were lost, took a wrong turn, or had intentions to harm me and my family? They are definitely not going to be able to tell anyone

Moral of the story, forget about the guns, if they are killed with a hurley to the head then its more plausible and straight forward as to what happened

Why do people always have to use such an extreme example. By ur logic we should outlaw hurleys because we may start attack people who come near the front door before they get a chance to say. If guns were legalised people are hardly going to start shooting randomly at people on their land, this man harassed nallys for a long time, was a know criminal and had been on his land before. He was a threat, he was no use to society in any way, he started it, he deserved what he got

Ush1

Doylers wrote: »

Why do people always have to use such an extreme example. By ur logic we should outlaw hurleys because we may start attack people who come near the front door before they get a chance to say. If guns were legalised people are hardly going to start shooting randomly at people on their land, this man harassed nallys for a long time, was a know criminal and had been on his land before. He was a threat, he was no use to society in any way, he started it, he deserved what he got

Hurleys are designed to play hurling with, what are guns designed for?

allibastor

It does always boggle the mind people who on either side of the arguement cant engage in a sensible conversation.

There is a huge difference between having a weapon in your private property and someone entering it illegally with unknown intentions, and going out into the world armed to the teeth.

Thomas20

Ush1 wrote: »

lol seriously? Shoot someone even after police tell you not to pursue them?

lol guess you ignore the fact zimmerman had
'A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.'
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532

Lelantos

darkhorse wrote: »

Does that mean if a burglar breaks in to my home, I have to clarify with him what would be his preference in robbing from me, before I make a decision on what course of action I am gonna take. Should I make out an inventory of all belongings with the heading "NOTICE TO INTENDING BURGLARS", and hang it in the hallway.

How would you do it now? You don't own a gun, so how do you protect yourself at the minute?

Jimmy Garlic

Lelantos wrote: »

The law in this country states that reasonable force only. If you shoot someone breaking in to rob a ps3, that doesn't count & you go to jail, its that simple

If someone is in your house you can't pause to ask them if they are violent or not. If someone breaks into my house then shooting them would be reasonable force. They decided to become a criminal. They decided to break into someones home. They should be aware that there is a risk of death.

I have no pity for lowlife criminals. There has to be a deterrent.

Doc Ruby

Just a question for the pro gun advocates in the discussion - how do ye propose to prevent another Frog Ward getting his hands on one of these far more freely available guns? Or his son? Or his cousin? Or his wife?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have some unique problems with elements from certain sections of society here, and I couldn't support more liberal gun ownership laws until those problems were resolved. Because if they weren't armed before, they sure as hell would be afterwards.

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

lol guess you ignore the fact zimmerman had
'A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.'
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532

No I'm not ignoring that. Those things probably happened because he didn't listen to the police on the phone telling him not to pursue the teenager.

The reality is Zimmerman wanted to shoot something that day, like a lot of people over here want to shoot something.

allibastor

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Just a question for the pro gun advocates in the discussion - how do ye propose to prevent another Frog Ward getting his hands on one of these far more freely available guns? Or his son? Or his cousin? Or his wife?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have some unique problems with elements from certain sections of society here, and I couldn't support more liberal gun ownership laws until those problems were resolved. Because if they weren't armed before, they sure as hell would be afterwards.

would have to be a stringent guard check on if you have previous convictions or not, also if there is a need for the gun and if there is adequate storage for the weapon. and of course if the person is right in the head for it, you dont want some lads with some form of delusions of space men getting a gun do you

Doc Ruby

allibastor wrote: »

would have to be a stringent guard check on if you have previous convictions or not, also if there is a need for the gun and if there is adequate storage for the weapon. and of course if the person is right in the head for it, you dont want some lads with some form of delusions of space men getting a gun do you

All that already exists, in fact that's pretty much the law as it stands right now. So what are people proposing to stop certain funerals turning into the wild west with more liberal gun laws?

Lelantos

allibastor wrote: »

would have to be a stringent guard check on if you have previous convictions or not, also if there is a need for the gun and if there is adequate storage for the weapon. and of course if the person is right in the head for it, you dont want some lads with some form of delusions of space men getting a gun do you

Sandy Hook? Gun was owned by a responsible person & in a safe but family.member had access, checks are fine & dandy, but if someone wants to get a gun, they will

allibastor

Doc Ruby wrote: »

All that already exists, in fact that's pretty much the law as it stands right now. So what are people proposing to stop certain funerals turning into the wild west with more liberal gun laws?

its the same problem then now then isnt it, the wrong form of people will always be able to get weapons to use for their own needs, letting us normal now scummy people have access to some form of weapon will let us even out the odds ever so slightly.

Does anyone rememebr the case ini think gort a few years ago where an armed man held himself in a house, while the guards were outside with thier batons? its the same problem that people can get a gun if they have the connections, and more regulation will not really change that, but allowing people to have better access to thier own personal defence might help them.

allibastor

Lelantos wrote: »

Sandy Hook? Gun was owned by a responsible person & in a safe but family.member had access, checks are fine & dandy, but if someone wants to get a gun, they will

to be fair, there was not a fine and safe person with the guns, the mother was not exaclty a shining example of clear mental health, and the fact she let her son with known mental problems access to the weapons is not exactly proving your point. also i beleive that nutcase had an assault rifle and 2 handguns. what i am talking about is a small guage rifle or a single/double barrel shot gun.

Thomas20

Ush1 wrote: »

No I'm not ignoring that. Those things probably happened because he didn't listen to the police on the phone telling him not to pursue the teenager.

The reality is Zimmerman wanted to shoot something that day, like a lot of people over here want to shoot something.

Or maybe he wanted to protect his neighborhood...
And picking a story the liberal media has blown up is a always great thing to do.

Doc Ruby

allibastor wrote: »

its the same problem then now then isnt it, the wrong form of people will always be able to get weapons to use for their own needs, letting us normal now scummy people have access to some form of weapon will let us even out the odds ever so slightly.

Does anyone rememebr the case ini think gort a few years ago where an armed man held himself in a house, while the guards were outside with thier batons? its the same problem that people can get a gun if they have the connections, and more regulation will not really change that, but allowing people to have better access to thier own personal defence might help them.

You think flooding the place with firearms is going make it any better? The old canard of criminals always having easy access to guns isn't true, as far as I can see. Otherwise why would they be using slash hooks and baseball bats.

Ush1

Thomas20 wrote: »

Or maybe he wanted to protect his neighborhood...
And picking a story the liberal media has blown up is a always great thing to do.

"Protecting" his neighbourhood by killing an unarmed teenager who wasn't anywhere near him and no threat to him at all?

allibastor

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You think flooding the place with firearms is going make it any better? The old canard of criminals always having easy access to guns isn't true, as far as I can see. Otherwise why would they be using slash hooks and baseball bats.

have you seen the amoutn of gun crime at all, of course they can get guns, different types of criminals can get what they want or need.

and who said anything about flooding the place? its not like you go to tesco and do your shopping through the gun isle. much similar to the process now, except make it more accessible for people

Rasheed

With the elderly alarm pendant funding being cut, the elderly will feel even more vulnerable. If a gun gives them a bit them a bit of peace, off with them.

http://www.herald.ie/news/anger-as-1m-cut-from-oap-alarm-budget-3348338.html

Thomas20

Ush1 wrote: »

"Protecting" his neighbourhood by killing an unarmed teenager who wasn't anywhere near him and no threat to him at all?

Considering Zimmermans injuries it's safe to say Treyvon was a threat. And talking about individual one off cases is fairly pedantic.

Doc Ruby

allibastor wrote: »

and who said anything about flooding the place? its not like you go to tesco and do your shopping through the gun isle. much similar to the process now, except make it more accessible for people

No, what you're saying is make it more accessable for the right kind of people. What I'm saying is that there's no way of determining the right kind of people if you loosen up gun laws. Don't get me wrong, generally I'm pro gun and support a person's right to defend themselves, their family and property, to the death if need be, but really our unique social conditions need to be taken into account.

What form of loosening up of the laws would you suggest, given that what you described earlier is basically the law as it stands now?