That’s a good point. I hadn’t considered that. I don’t own my own home and probably couldn’t do those things. However, there are a lot of people who could, and aren’t, instead relying solely on their guns. When was the last time you saw an upscale neighborhood (or any neighborhood that wasn’t a ghetto) where a significant number of people had bars on their windows? I can’t think of any. I guess that either means that people feel safe in their neighborhoods not owning guns or that the risks of gun ownership are preferable to the unsightly blight of window bars.
Yeah, and kids never disobey their parents. They never see forbidden objects as alluring. They don’t see guns glorified in movies and TV and want to try them for themselves when parents aren’t around. That never happens.
And not having a gun is one less way.
I’m not saying you want to completely shelter your kids from the real world, but are firearms really that important? I never shot one until I was 21 and I turned out fine. The only negative consequence of my gunless upbringing that I can see is that (as was pointed out) I didn’t know Remington didn’t make handguns. Oh well.
To be honest, I hadn’t really given gun control all that much thought until I responded to this thread. It’s not really an issue in my day-to-day life.
I started looking for statistics on the web related to gun violence, whether accidental or otherwise, and ran into what one usually runs into when he uses the web to research a controversial subject - a million web pages that all contradict each other. Everyone has their own strong agenda (or else they wouldn’t have a web page) and many tend to skewer the numbers or misinterpret statistics to serve their own views. I can’t tell what’s right and what’s wrong out there.
What I do know is that I’ve gotten along fine without a gun for 24 years, and I’ll probably do the same for the next 50 or so. The neighborhood I live in isn’t so great. The rent is low. Everyone is poor. The people I see walking down my street are the same people that screw up my order every time I go to Wendy’s.
But you know what? I still feel safe. Having a gun around wouldn’t make me feel any safer. It would just be another thing to worry about.
I know this discussion has thus far been based about a serial killer, but let’s face it: if someone is breaking into your place, they’re usually looking for something expensive to steal - not your head on a platter. Random killings of that nature are statistically insignificant compared to run-of-the-mill burglaries.
If someone decides to rob my place, I’ll hunker down in a closet and let him steal my computer. It’s not worth taking a human life (even if it’s the life of a scumbag who should probably be behind bars) to salvage my material possessions. Plus, if I come out firing, I run the risk that the intruder has a gun too. If I shoot at him, he’ll shoot at me. I’m not willing to risk my life on my marksmanship. If I’m hiding in a closet, he’s almost certainly just going to take my stuff and run, even if he is armed.
So maybe I’ll be reduced to using my old Pentium II to access the boards, rather than my zippy new Athlon. It’s better than taking a human life and having it weigh on my conscience until the day my own life ends.
I gotta disagree with the “getting rid of the gun” part. I’ve studied martial arts for a long time. (Over 20 years) Not claiming to be Bruce Lee or anything but women do not do as well, on average, with martial arts as men do. Not counting “style” type things like Judo or TKD, but serious MA such as Kali or Jiu-Jutsu.
Most women don’t have the required upper body strength and they are also cheated on their training. By that I mean that most men, myself most emphatically included, flinch from taking a serious shot at a female partner. Also, while some women could excell at MA, how many are willing to invest the time and energy into it? It takes between 3 and 5 years of lessons, 3 times per week to become proficient.
Most women could learn enough to surprise some guy and get away from him. All well and good if they can then flee to a safe haven. If they can’t get far enough away though, the guy may get up and come after them.
There is also the issue of a few lessons at the local dojo instilling a sense of confidence into someone that really shouldn’t have it. Tales of wannabe kung-fu wizards (almost always male) getting seriously hurt in a bar abound.
Not to dis the martial arts. I love them and have spent a lot of time and effort becoming proficient in them, but women need an edge if they’re going against a male opponent. Guns provide that edge.
I’d be glad to give you a little help. Try looking at the cause of death statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and the Uniform Crime Statistics Reports at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You really can’t beat objective statistics when you want to find out facts. You’ll find that the number of gun accidents is far, far lower than you might imagine, and that on the whole, areas with less gun control have far less crime than places with heavy gun control.
And that’s totally your right. I am 100% in favor of not owning a gun if you don’t want a gun.
This attitude is what distresses me. Your rights are being infringed. Your property is being intruded upon. Yet you are the one who feels responsible for taking action to avoid a confrontation.
The person who is doing the intruding had the responsibility to avoid confrontation. He is in the wrong, yet you feel like he has the right to ransack your home and he’s welcome to your things, just as long as you don’t have to face him.
I say that if your home is invaded, you have the obligation to defend it. If somebody is in your home without your permission, the default assumption is that your life is in danger. If an armored column rolled up through Mexico into California or Texas, or down through Canada into New York or Washington, would we all hide in our holes and let them take what they wanted, assuming that they don’t want to hurt us? Hell no! The invasion itself is the aggressive act, and we make the basic assumption that it puts us in danger.
But when an armed invader enters your home, you assume everything is ok. Your home is supposed to be your refuge. You should be secure in your home. When it is violated, an aggressive act has already been committed, and you are in danger.
It can’t be done. There is no way for women, through training, to equalize the size and strength advantage that men have, because MEN ARE STRONGER AND BIGGER. Corrina Everson, billion-time Miss Olympia, said once that she’s tired of men wanting to arm-wrestle her because they feel threatened that she is so muscular. She went on to say that even an average man is considerably stronger than she (Miss Olympia) is, because men are simply built for strength, and women are not. Yes, there are some women who are stronger than some men, but that is the rare exception. And unless you’re somebody like Kathy Long, who can spend the time to become a world-class kickboxer, no martial arts training is going to make you able to compete with the average man in combat. Face the fact that we are built differently. There is a reason why armies have always been composed of men.
As much as I hate seeing “cite, please?” on threads, I really have to say it here. Are you aware of any statistics regarding the number of women who have been shot with their own guns ANYWHERE, let alone Louisiana? I’d like to see them if you don’t mind.
Oh, or are you just quoting things that “everybody knows…”? You know, Snopes.com is just full of things that “everybody knows” but are actually false.
Being wary of strangers is a good thing, except that it can make you reclusive, and humans are social beings. You can’t run around seeing a boogyman in every person on the street. I think the governor gave quality advice. Remember that not all that long ago, it was the norm for households to have guns and every member of the household to know how to use it. And things that go on now did not happen then. This irrational fear of guns is not a good thing.
I want to echo Joe_Cool’s statement about protecting your home, and both your rights and your responsibilities.
I guess I live in an odd world. In my world, my home is where I live, work, play, rest, love, and occasionally have sex. It is my safe place to be, where I can shut out all of the world and relax and rest. It’s my second-largest investment, and most people’s first-largest. It’s where I go to sleep some nights (when I’m not travelling) hoping to remain safe and sound.
A criminal intruder in my house has violated me and my privacy as much as if they were assaulting me. They are in my space, and there is no, I repeat, no guarantee whatsoever they will be satisfied to just take a few possessions and leave. There is no guarantee that while I am cowering, they won’t decide to have a bit o’ rapin’, all in good fun. Or beat me around a bit. Or abduct me. Or just shoot me in the head, because they saw somone do it on TV, and it looked cool!
I don’t think it’s just sad anymore, I think it’s sick - profoundly and disturbingly sick - that someone would let a person violate them and the sanctity of their home, and just accept it.
It’s one thing to look for trouble, but another thing entirely to take reasonable steps to be able to use legal weapons to defend yourself. Otherwise, you can just put yourself at their mercy - let people do what they will to you - to bend over and grab your ankles, and hope he doesn’t kill you this time he rapes you, since after all - you couldn’t live with hurting someone while defending yourself, right?
Why would anyone willingly place their lives in the hands of criminals? Or place themselves at their mercy, reliant on their deep-down good intentions?
I’m sorry, I’m feeling very intolerant and disrespectful of the viewpoints of others this morning, because these thoughts I see echoed on the screen seem alien to me. And I have a card I so desperately want to play, but you know what? No one will care. People like to live in a fantasy world, where either “it’s not going to happen to me”, or “maybe they’ll just come in, take my stuff, tip their cap and say “evenin’ ma’am”, and leave me alone”.
But really, I want to ask a question of vast, tenuous, society out there - who convinced you that it was better to be a victim than to fight back? Who convinced you that your life was worth less than others? Who convinced you that you were less important than a criminal who offends all? Who convinced you that the Smiling Policeman[sup]TM[/sup] would always be there to save you? Who convinced you that you had no right to defend yourself, or even no moral imperative and mandate to do so? Who convinced you that taking an active, oppositional role in defending your home and person was somehow “wrong”? And who convinced you that your house, your home, your possessions, were not of great meaning to you, and worth defending from criminals?
Who convinced you to cower in the closet instead of fighting back? Who convinced you to pass on the responsibility of stopping the criminal to his next victim, whoever that may be - your neighbor, a child, anyone?
I want to know who did this, because I want to kick their fucking ass on your behalf, if you will not do so yourself.
It would take more than a 6 week course to handle a signifigantly larger and determined male, I think. I would reccomend at least a year. But I don’t think that’s out of line. Remember that a woman doesn’t have to kill the man, just get away or be able to raise enough ruckus to get help. Knowing your way out of choke holds is very helpful in that respect.
Well the ownership of the gun is something that I think would be hard to determine statistically. But if a people live together does that mean in a domestic dispute the man would say"Gee, if that was my gun, I’d shoot you with it, but since it’s yours I guess I won’t." The more physically capable person will have control of the gun. I’m not making a gun control argument I’m contrasting versions of protection. I said more women died from domestice violence, not from being shot from their own gun. While it’s hard to get statistics on serial killings since we often don’t know it’s serial until afterwards I think it’s a safe bet.Here’s a link showing 11 deaths in only a small area of Louisiana so far this year. Six of the incidences described the women getting shot. One of them very dramatic, she was climbing the fence to get away when she was shot in the back. The only time that man was killed by woman, a knife was used, so I guess women aren’t so helpless physically after all.
Try doing a simple web search before you mention Snopes. It’s a much better way to learn.
Well, there are extremes to everything. Actual information about the killer’s methods can help people who are already fearful make informed decisions.
Sorry perspective, that’s not how it works in GD. If you make a statement with the intent that is factual, you are obligated to present supporting evidence. If someone rebuts you, then they are to provide evidence supporting their contrary position.
My, my, Anthracite. That was quite the little rant. Bravo for trouncing the opinions and beliefs of others so completely. You’re quite right, you were being intolerant and disrespectful, and tack on insensitive to that as well, since you don’t know anything about the person you were (ostensibly) responding to… there may be deep-seated reasons for what he or she said that you have no clue about.
However, you’ve already owned up to your intolerance and disrespect there, so all I have to add to that is that I hope a little bit of perspective will encourage you to think twice about your summary condemnation of views alternative to your own. Believing something ardently doesn’t make your view “right,” and others “wrong.”
My real purpose here is to ask this: what did all of that rant have to do with guns? Nothing, if you ask me.
Here’s the thing… I own a home. I have three daughters and a wife. Though I am a non-violent man, I’ll protect my home and my family from those who would harm it – with my life if necessary. I’ll use whatever tools I have at hand… a knife, one of several swords I own, a heavy object, a broken glass, or whatever. I’ll also use my own body… as a 6-foot-6 man topping out at over 250 pounds, it makes its own weapon pretty well. I will do what I have to do to prevent my family from being harmed.
I draw the line, however, at owning a gun. I have fired guns, and I have received training on how to use them properly, but I will not own a gun or keep one in my house. Period.
Further, I will staunchly oppose anyone who says that I “should” own a gun, or that it is the “only” or “best” way for me to defend my family. In my opinion, the risks of owning a firearm outweigh any benefits I would receive from it.
I have no problem with the rights of others to own their guns, though I would like to see responsible gun ownership encouraged more often than it is (which is why I’m glad to see that the Louisiana judge encouraged training… my parenthetical nod to the OP).
However, just because I choose not to own a gun does not mean I have no means of protecting myself and my family. I personally feel that a gun is wrong for my family and I, and my wife agrees, so that is that. You have no right to criticize that decision, any more than I have a right to criticize your decision to own a gun.
I have no problem with providing evidence, which I did. The snopes comment was out of line in my book. Simply asking for evidence is enough, you don’t need some holier than thou barb. These tactics are better suited for the Pit.
I think you totally missed the point in Anthracite’s post, Avalonian. As far as I can recall, Anthracite has never posted in any gun thread that those who do not own guns are weenies or whatnot. From what I read her rant was against allowing yourself to become a victim. I’m sure everyone here respects your decision and your right to not own a firearm, as a six foot something 250 lb man, I’m sure you can hold your own. However, it’s the five nothing 115 lb woman who may have a problem dealing with an attacker your size without an equalizer. As a prior victim of a violent sexual assault (and a vow to never be a victim again), I think Anthracite gets a wee bit excited whenever someone discusses taking away her right to defend herself and/or the sanctity of her domicile. (or in this case the relative willingness to cower in the closet rather than take action)
I apologize for my presumptuousness in speaking for Anthracite in this regard, but I felt her post was quite compelling.
If that is the case, then you just said it far better than she did.
Actually, what you say addresses exactly the question I just asked. Anthracite’s rant had nothing to do with guns, per se, and as such should have been made somewhere else.
I’m all for nobody being a victim and standing up for themselves, and if a gun is necessary for them to do so, then so be it. But her blanket criticism of others is inappropriate, and off-topic. Should have been in the Pit, if you ask me.
Your condescending and snide attitude in this first paragraph does not bode well towards reaching any sort of common understanding or appreciation of viewpoints.
My little rant was intended to be a general rant against a societal viewpoint which I oppose. What is puzzling is that it almost seems as if you agreed with much of what I has to say, since you stated yourself that you intend to defend actively your home, family, and self. And because of that, it is unclear why your post is so obviously and snidely oppositional towards me and mine.
Yes, I did, I admitted it, and now you’ve brought it up twice in two paragraphs. You are finished now, correct?
There also seems to be some irony in your tone, combined with your chiding of me for ‘disrespect’.
That’s what I said? I said views alternative to my own were wrong? I said that ardent belief made my views right? Really? I do not think I said that.
Since the topic encompasses guns, protection from serial killers, and protection from crime in general, I feel I am on-topic here. This topic is not just about guns, regardless of how many times you want to say it or wish that it “should have been made somewhere else”.
I’m certain your opinions would be different if you were a 5’5" 118 pound woman.
“Several swords”, huh? I don’t even know where to start.
And you carefully avoided the nod to my first post here, which also strongly encouraged the same. Why did you only pick out the things I said which you disagreed with, but refused to bring up the things I said you agreed with?
I stand by my rant, which was intended to be an on-topic expository and persuasive tirade against the “victimization” complex that pervades our society, focusing on self-defence and home-defence. Although I was not directing it towards anyone in particular here, nor was it developed or formulated in response to anyone in particular here, it will nonetheless be a cold splash of water on the faces of some who read it, and it will upset people.
And it will open me up to more snide responses like yours. But I suspect there are more than a few people here that agree with me on this.
Pacifism, even extreme pacifism, is a respected belief system in my book. I personally do not agree with it or follow it, but how could I possibly disrespect it? That itself would be wrong; very wrong of me to do so.
Victimization, or pacifism as a result of a victimization complex, is not a belief I can respect. I feel that it is wrong to think of oneself as a victim, and thus do nothing to protect oneself. And I will fight with whatever words I can to try and wake women and men up to the fact that they do not have to be victims. They should not fear defending their own lives, families, livlihoods, and homes because the New York Times, Charles Schumer, or anyone else tells them that they should not use whatever legal means are available to do so.
There are all sorts of deep seated reasons for wrong headed beliefs. That doesn’t mean we should actually respect those beliefs does it? I’m unsure exactly how Athracite was being intolerant. Opposition isn’t intolerance is it?
**
Personally I don’t care whether you or anyone else owns a firearm. However the attitude that one should be slaughtered as opposed to defending one self is one I find completely disgusting. Yes, I know you don’t share that particularly vile streak of pacifism.
**
Once an attack is inevitable it is the best way for you to defend yourself. It is more effective then tasers, pepper spray, hand weapons, or fisticuffs.
Nobody said you had to own a gun. What Athracite was railing against, and rightly so, was the attitude that it was preferrable to be a victim then to take a life.
You are giving the impression that the topic of this thread, as you see it, is very important to you. It is important to me as well. I, however, contend that the topic of this thread is by no means a simple “gun control” one. I think to refer to the topic as being just about guns is short-sighted and being possibly ignorant of several key factors, especially when there are so many issues intertwined with this. The actions, reactions, and circumstances surrounding a city, region, group of people who are at fear due the acts of a particular criminal or criminals is a pretty complex issue. This is a gun issue, yes. But it’s also an issue about reasonable, and unreasonable responses to a generalized criminal threat to a society. And what the roles are of the members of said society to protect themselves from the threat, and how they came by those roles.
I see it as being a very complex issue. And I don’t want to sell it short.
It’s not a blanket criticism of others, regardless of what you say, and it is not off-topic, regardless of what you say. Should your first snide-toned post have been better off in the Pit as well? I don’t know that either yours or my comments as of yet belong outside of this thread.
Well, I think your opinions are valid, and I respect your holding of them. Whereas it does appear at one level that you have really come in here to chide me for going off of what is your idea of the topic, to claim I am being globally insulting and insensitive to people here, and to now make references to the Pit in some baffling attempt to goad me.
If you have a problem with me, and you are that concerned with what you believe is the topic of this thread, then it behooves you to stop hijacking this thread and start one elsewhere.
One thing I want to do to mend the fence, so to speak, is to repeat that my rant was intended to be a railing against societal pressures and influences that force pacifism by way of creating a victimization complex. Perhaps that sums it up best.
Pacifism, as a belief system, is a profoundly advanced and good thing in general, and I do respect it.
And whether a person does not want to own, use, or be around guns or weapons themselves or in their own home or place of residence is their choice.
What I do object to, and what influences me to speak out, is that choice having been made on the basis of a victimization complex; or as a result of feelings of fear, uncertainty, and dread over firearms. For many reasons that I will not expanded upon here, due to lack of time.
Many women do have a victimization complex, and a fear, or at least reluctance, to act to protect themselves - whether it be from serial killers, or something as mundane as a sexually predatory boss at work. This comes about, I feel, as a result of society “putting women in their place”, or as a result of a destructive family history, a troubled or abusive relationship or relationships, or simply an unfamiliarity with their true inner strength that each human being has, or a complete lack of belief that they do in fact have an inner strength, which can be realized.
I categorically reject the notion that women are weak, and that they must depend on others to protect them. I reject the notion that they must not fight back, out of fear of getting hurt. And I reject the notion that “it’s all too hopeless, there’s no point in doing anything about it”.
Which is why I encourage women, and men, to really examine why they have the feelings that they somehow do not want to use firearms (coupled with subsantial and complete and regular training and practice) to protect themselves. It’s different when you are a large man. You, being a 6’6" behemoth, have no real concept of what it’s like to be samll and weak enough to be physically threatened by a 12-year old with an attitude. Firearms can be an equalizer, where the 94-pound woman can fight off, or at least has a much better chance to do so, the 280-pound rapist.
The key, of course, being a substantial amount of training, practice, practice, practice, and practice. Plus a willingness to do what it takes to defend yourself.
And thus, I do rail against a society which I see perpetuates or attempts to perpetuate victimhood.
What if one of the three women slaughtered had had a handgun, and the training and will to use it? We will never know what would have been the actual result - but I do know, and can state with 100% certainty, that it is unlikely they would be worse off today as a result.
I agree with that, and I don’t want to sell it short either. I didn’t mean to leave that impression.
I do not have a problem with you specifically, though I can see why you think I might. I think it was your tone I responded to earlier. The tone of your post, disrespectful by your own admission, really rubbed me the wrong way, and the generalities you posited in it seemed inappropriate. You began by responding to a specific post by neutron star, one which I felt was quite thoughtful and honest and heartfelt, and it felt like you were essentially raking that person over the coals for how they felt about this issue.
Now that you’ve taken the rhetorical devices down a notch or two, I can say that I actually agree with much of what you say, and I respect your viewpoint. It was not you that I had a problem with, but the tone of the particular post I responded to, which seemed out-of-character compared to your other posts, frankly.
If I have any defense to offer of what I said, it would be this: perhaps the “ranting” nature of that post made it less appropriate to this discussion. The more reasonable tone adopted in your more recent posts is preferable, at least to me.
I agree that the victimization of women (and people in general) is a huge problem. However, I have a hard time aiming at “society” as the cause… using that term is too general, too unspecific for me. Certain individuals victimize women, and I would even agree that some elements of American society do the same, and I would certainly agree that it should be stopped.
But “society”? First of all, which society are you talking about? I would argue that there is many more than one… in some cases I might agree, but some specificity is needed. I would also argue that many societies (such as the ones my friends and I generally circulate in) women are actually empowered to be their true selves, and to express themselves as they wish, and to stand up for themselves. Would you disagree with this? Do you not know of any society that behaves this way?
I guess I’d just like you to define your terms a little. Blaming “society” for this kind of thing makes it sound like you haven’t thought it through very clearly. I’m not saying you haven’t, just suggesting that you might express your thoughts more specifically on the matter.
I also reject all of those things.
I never said I did… I suppose I was merely pointing out that your argument, as it applies to firearms, does not apply universally. I could have done a little bit better job of saying that.
While I agree with your thoughts about being basically against victimization (and would, in fact, expand them to cover men as well as women), I think more specificity would benefit your point. In this case, it has.
And here again… can you be more specific than “society”? I think it would drive your point home a little better.
Finally, I am sorry that I reacted so strongly to your earlier post. While I would point out that your own post was worded quite… stridently, shall we say… I should have followed my own advice and used more restraint to gain a better understanding before drawing a conclusion. You seem quite passionate about the issue, even now, and passions can often inflame anger. To me, your words sounded angry, and had I been the person whose post you had responded to (projecting here, I know), I would have frankly felt a bit steamrolled. However, I can accept that what you said came from the heart, and your more reasonable posts since have clarified the position to me.
You have my apologies for my “snide” tone earlier. I should have done better, and I will be sure to do so in the future.
Thank you very much, Avalonian. Your explaining of your position and feelings does actually mean quite a lot to me. And now I understand why you took some offence at my post. It was a strongly-worded post, and perhaps I was feeling a bit overly strident when I made it.
I hope now we both understand the other much better, and are not so far apart as we were in those long ago days of…a few hours ago.
Since it seemed that Antracite’s post was at least partially directed at me, I feel I should respond. Actually, I read the post early this afternoon before I went to work, then wrote my response out on paper at work to type up when I got home (they really don’t give me much to do at work). Some of it may have been addressed in the several posts made by others while I was at work, but I’m going to type up the whole thing here anyway. Here goes:
Anthracite, the one thing here I hope we can both agree on is that your primary goal is to keep yourself alive, right? Actually murdering someone who breaks into your house is an ancilliary concern.
In other words, you’re not the type who would leave her front door ajar all night and sit right behind it with a loaded shotgun inviting trouble. You don’t want to be a vigilante, but you would be if your life was on the line. If we can’t agree on this much, I don’t see much room for rational debate.
If you really want to kill someone whose sole intention is to steal your stereo, I find that morally repugnant, perhaps even moreso than the acts of the burglar himself. That “sanctity of my home” hooey doesn’t fly with me. It’s the sanctity of your life you should be worried about. I know you can’t know the true intentions of the stranger rattling your doorknob, but it’s also not a good idea to run screaming into the living room, firearm in hand, intending to kill the person the second they walk in the door.
Most burglars are not murders, rapists, or psychos. More than likely they are desperate addicts or simply petty thieves. They will go out of their way to find a dwelling in which nobody appears to be home, just so they can avoid the kind of confrontation you’re preparing yourself for. Most burglars regard the idea of murdering innocents with the same reproach that you and I do. (How they justify stealing from the same innocents, I have no idea.)
Furthurmore, they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives behind bars (especially not here in LA, where life MEANS life and the only maximum security prison is the infamous Angola State Penitentiary), or worse, face the ultimate punishment - the chair. They just want some money.
More than likely, they also have the common sense to know that a house that appears to be empty may not be, and that if there is someone inside, s/he may be armed. So it only seems logical that an intruder would take a gun of his own along for self-defense.
My concern is that in preparing yourself for the extremely unlikely (murderer/rapist), you’re actually putting yourself at a disadvantage in the much-more-likely simple burglary scenario.
If you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your house being broken into, then immediately grab for your pistol and run into the living room to gun down the intruder, what do you think he’s going to do? Stand there and let you kill him? Hell, no! He’s going to reach for his own piece and try to get you before you get him. You’re putting yourself in mortal danger.
What if, instead, you hid with your gun in the closet? That way, if the burglar wanted to take your stuff and run, he could. If, on the other hand, he went searching around the house, he’d get a point-blank surprise coming to him the second he opened your closet. He wouldn’t have time to reach for his own gun.
Is your stereo really worth risking your life for? Is the crime of burglary really worthy of an immediate death sentence? The law may justify your homicide, but will your conscience?
What if the person you shot wasn’t a burglar at all, but a non-violent mentall-ill person who didn’t know what he was doing. Or perhaps it could be somebody so high on god-knows-what that they just went into the wrong house (remember Robert Downey Jr.?).
Even worse, what if you panicked and fired at someone you thought was an intruder, but was really just a relative coming home at an unexpected time. I recall a case a couple of years ago where a father shot and killed his own daughter in just this type of scenario.
What I’m gathering from your posts, Anthracite, is that you’re a strong-willed woman who is willing to do whatever it takes to prevent someone from taking advantage of you in any way. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to choose your battles wisely. You should evaluate the risks and decide whether or not the crime involved is worth endangering two human lives.
If someone broke into my apartment for the sole purpose of stealing my TV and he was succcessful because I just hid in the closet, I would probably feel violated and angry for a while, but I’d get over it.
If, on the other hand, I shot and killed the guy while he was about to run out the door with my TV, I don’t know if I could ever get over that. Like I said before, it would haunt me for the rest of my life. You claim not to feel the same way, but you really can’t know that for sure until you’ve actually killed someone. By then, it’s too late.
Yes, with the gun-in-the-closet scenario, I did encourage you to use a firearm. That’s because I know you’re going to use one anyway, and I’m simply suggesting that you do it in a more sensible and restrained manner to avoid putting yourself in harm’s way.
neutron star, you’re right. There is evidently no room for rational debate. You seem to believe that the responsibility lies with the victim, when in fact it lies with the intruder. When my rights and my home are being violated, the first step has already been taken by the intruder, and as the person wronged, it is my responsibility to defend my rights and my life.
When someone breaks into my home, I will not wait around and hide, hoping they intend “only” to steal my possessions. The violent act is the invasion itself, and I will respond accordingly if it ever happens. Hiding in your closet hoping the bad guy will go away is precisely the vile victim-attitude that Anthracite is railing against, and frankly I’m just as disgusted by it as she is. I will always support your right not to own a gun, but I’ll be damned if I let you tell me that I should not defend myself, but instead cower in my own home, hoping that the danger will just pass.
That said, I’d like to derail your ridiculous strawman. Nobody leaves the door open, hoping they can shoot somebody tonight. But at the same time, an open door does not give you the right to enter and steal at will.
Let’s get one thing straight about the “vigilante” implication here, before things get out of control.
Although I have ample means to do so, I’ve never hurt a human being without having first been hurt - typically brutally so.
I don’t believe I said they should be killed. I said you should take an active armed defense.
And I would love to know how I am to know that the person in the house if there to take the stereo and leave. I defy you to tell me that you can judge the entire and total reasons for the person being illegally in your house, invading your privacy and personal domain. Are they there for the stereo? For the jewelry? What about when they find my safe and can’t open it? Do they bang me around a bit to get me to open it? Do they decide that a good bit o’ rapin’ will make their night complete?
Please tell me how, when I find the person in my house, I am to know what their game plan is. And whether or not that game plan is subject to change.
It takes a horrendous amount of disrespect for another human being to invade their home and rob them. And someone with that much disrespect is a dangerous person.
With respect, it’s not “hooey” because you say so. You haven’t presented any counter-arguments or positions to my position about the sanctity of my home.
And I said or implied I was waiting to kill someone the second they walked in? I’ve re-read my posts, and only talk about defending your home. You have deliberately twisted my words to your own usage - claiming I am advocating murder - and portraying my advocacy of defending your home as tantamount to committing murder.
Tell me exactly how I know I have one of the “non-threatening” kind of burglars in my house, coming down my hall towards my room, and not the “rape and kill” kind.
Given the nature of the crime, and the tremendous disrespect to your person involved in entering your house to rob you, how can you mentally apply limitations on the actions of any one person who has decided to come into your place and rob you?
Just the usage of the term “burglar” is misleading, because it implies that the intent of the intruder in my house is known for a fact. A more correct word is “the intruder with unknown intent”, because knowing they were “only a burglar” (what a relief! :rolleyes: ) can only be determined ex post facto.
So why do people commit crimes if they don’t want to spend their lives behind bars? Seriously? It doesn’t seem to be working very well, given the fact that crime does occur, and the prisons are full. This is a non-issue.
I find this very surprising, when a very common argument on this Board by people in favor of gun control and against armed defence is that the intruders and burglars are almost always unarmed, and thus would only “steal (my) gun to use it against (me)”? And thus, by having a gun, I am only facilitating their crime against me?
So which is it, really - are they more likely to be armed, or unarmed?
I’m not going to debate strawman scenarios with you. For every one you can think up, I can think up one to my advantage which supports my position too. Neither of us can win this one, nor convince the other.
A loaded question, and unfair. Of course a stereo is not worth a life, mine or anothers. But that’s not the point here.
This has been addressed in threads too numerous to count. I reply always with “How did this person not knowing what they are doing manage to get past my locks and security systems? How did they just happen to get into my house in the middle of the night?” And why is a mentally ill person in my house in the middle of the night suddenly a person that I feel is…harmless? This makes no sense. Let me put it as a blatant and inflammatory strawman phrase:
“You wake up in the middle of the night. There is a crashing from downstairs, as a Robbie, a severely mentally ill person who was committed to an asylum for the rape-torture-murder of 5 Catholic schoolgirls, has somehow broken into your house, and is trying to find the leprechauns that keep telling him there’s gold in your house. Maybe they’re in your bed! He goes upstairs to see…”
See how easy it is to come up with scenarios that unfairly support my side?
This has been addressed also in threads too numerous to count. No one has a right to be in my home, at any time, for any reason. No one has the keys to get in when I am home. Even my cats are locked away in a room, so they cannot get out and about in the middle of the night. Anyone in my home besides me is there for no good.
A lot of people - a very sad number - are tragically killed by accidents with guns, or by mis-use in self-defence (or mistaken self-defence). I am in no way reducing my stance or weakening my position by admitting that, as it is a simple fact. But this really has no bearing on the position of having a trained person using judgement to take an active role in defending their home.
As long as there are guns and negligent people, people will be accidentally and tragically killed by others with guns. This is true. But it does not mean that one has to just accept that fact and not do everything possible to ensure that, if they use arms to defend themselves or their property, that they will not be the one to bring about a tragedy. But this goes into a whole other issue, which as you will see later, we will likely not be discussing.
Not only do I refuse to submit to the implication that I am endangering two lives, I have not seen anything that counters my viewpoint of being armed and actively involved in the defence of yourself, your home, and society in general, against crime and criminals.
Life is full of probably’s. You cannot know what it’s like until it happens. There’s a certain highly-popular Doper here who keeps posting about how much fun it is to pretend like she’s being abducted and raped. I find it likely that she will find reality is not so fun. Real Crime is nothing like television or the movies, even as the so-called “reality shows” portray it.
Umm…yeah, well, if I shot a defenceless person in the back while fleeing, and they had not personally injured me, I would feel pretty badly too. Good thing I not only never advocated that, I would not do that, in the scenario you put forth.
Here is what I think.
I think you are so convinced by your position you are not actually reading what I am writing, or are not understanding what I am advocating. That part is OK, if true, because I may not be the most clear on some things. I understand that we may really just not be communicating our positions here effectively to one another.
What is not OK is your repeated implication that I am a potential killer, a person who is advocating killing over a stereo or shooting a person in the back, or an unstable person who intends to kill anyone in my house, or anyone who “rattles my door”.
I feel that you have not just mis-stated my position and statements, you have done so in a way, placing me in strawman arguments that support your side, that cast me in the worst possible light. I feel that you are casting me continually in a tone of having depraved indifference, and I do not care for it at all.
However, I have been told by friends I discussed this with this morning that you have a decent reputation for being a reasonable, intelligent poster. I feel that it is very possible there is simply a miscommunication here. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the above up to this point. But we need to be very clear from this point onward.
It could also be that you are making the mistake of keeping, in the back of your mind, an assertion that many who are not fans of firearms make - that usage for defence == willingness to murder. Or that usage or carrying of a firearm means a willingness to commit murder. I and others can assure you that that is not a valid stance to take.
I request that you re-read what I advocate on defence, defending your home, and taking an active role in fighting crime and not being a victim, and think again if the brush of being an “unstable potential murderess who will kill anyone with impunity that enters her home” (so to speak) that you seem to be trying to paint me with is a valid one to use.
