A gun is not the end-all, be-all, singular form of self defense possible. Having a gun in your hand does not immediately equate to safety. It would not have stopped that (stray?) bullet that came through the window. Pulling a gun on a gang of 3-4 thugs might net you 1-2 dead thugs yet still one dead victim.
The fact of the matter is that when a single individual is facing a small army against you, nothing you can put in your two hands is going to equalize that equation. You have to sleep… they (as a group) can strike you at any time of day or night. You have a single home target… they can scatter to the wind. You have a single source of income… they may have dozens, illegal and more lucrative. You have to expose yourself daily to walk to your legal job… they can hide in the shadows as long as they want. Since you can’t legally bring the fight to them, they always get the advantage of choosing their battlefield.
A gun is not the end-all, be-all, singular form of self defense possible… …Pulling a gun on a gang of 3-4 thugs might net you 1-2 dead thugs yet still one dead victim.
The fact of the matter is that when a single individual is facing a small army against you, nothing you can put in your two hands is going to equalize that equation… … they always get the advantage of choosing their battlefield.
[/QUOTE]
Why hasn’t anyone suggested evening the odds?
Why is everyone assuming that the options are only 1. to leave the neighbourhood to the criminals. Or 2. Fight them off single handed Charles Bronson style? (Less like Dirty Harry, 'cause he at least had a badge.)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Why don’t they take back their neighbourhood? Join together with the neighbours, in conjunction with the police. Form a plan to make it a safer place for citizens, and not a safe haven for criminals. Band together, outnumber them, and outsmart them.
I agree that arming yourself against a gang isn’t going to help. They are banding together to increase their strength. Law abiding citizens should do the same.
Completely agree; if you’re not in jail and not on probation, all of your rights should be restored to you. Even if you’re a felon.
And it’s ludicrous the current laws forbid ***all ***felons from possessing a gun. Don’t you feel safer knowing Martha Stewart is not allowed to own a gun? Ridiculous.
The parole system is in place because just being released from prison does not mean you are ready to integrate back into society. (And experiments where it has been abolished attest to this.) Not everyone is going to be ready for “all of their normal rights.” Some people can be functioning, productive members of society as long as they don’t have certain temptations.
Example: “I have a right to drink. I have a right to drive. I should have a right to drink and drive, dang-it. I’ve done it for years and I ain’t hurt no one yet. Don’t penalize me until I hurt someone.” Society has determined that that attitude is very dangerous and deadly for the rest of us… And even after they get out of jail, we can’t always trust them with the priviledge of driving. Driving prohibitions; restraining orders; firearms licensing; driver licensing. There are any number of “rights” that we restrict to those individuals that we deem trustworthy and responsible.
Sorry, I used a movie quote (Blazing Saddles) changing as little as possible to apply it to this topic. So you’ve got some cruft in the quote that, while it may help make it recognizable, does not directly apply, such as specch length, children, etc.
My memory may be the problem – none of the suggestions anyone made, or photos I looked at, seemed to match my hazy recollection. Thanks for the effort.
Sorry, my advice would be to obtain a residence where it is safer, rent a truck, pack everything up and move lock, stock and barrel [and with mom] and abandon the previous residence if she refuses to sell.
She is being an obstructive butthead. If I were a man, with a wife and mother in law that acted like that, I would lay down the law that MY WIFE AND I would be safe, and mom could either move or live there alone and die. I would not risk myself and my spouse in a situation like that.
If the question is still “can someone get acquitted if he really needed an illegal firearm to protect himself”, then it sounds like your only hope is jury nullification. And I think that is not something to expect.
The first case that springs to mind is Bernie Goetz. In NYC, of course, but it is instructive that the jury found that he was acting in justified self-defense, but still convicted him of illegal possession of a firearm.
The “Neighborhood Watch” thing is the best idea so far, if the gang-bangers have really taken over to that extent. And keep nagging the police and your alderman.
To be fair, Camera did sort of indicate that paying to move would be a problem. Perhaps some of the resistance to moving is concern over expenses. Hell, I’d move to Bel Air, except for the costs.
[QUOTE=Crafter Man]
Don’t you feel safer knowing Martha Stewart is not allowed to own a gun? Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t feel any safer knowing Martha Stewart was in the pokey, either. Your argument is one against incarceration of nonviolent criminals, not against restoration of felons’ civil rights.
Ah, Great Debates. So I’m not sure what your answer is…
Vigilante action?
Hope for jury nullification based on race as in the 1950’s south?
Suicide by proxy?
(Based on your response’s assumption of “changing” definition…)
When the situation has deteriorated, it is not racist nor cowardly to choose to leave versus dying, living in misery or risking imprisonment - his other choices.
I agree the system is seriously flawed when one cannot reclaim a right even 10 or 20 years after the offense is over. Note the inherent racism of Congress’s action in cutting funding to the permit group when you consider the relative demographics of prison population. No different than refusing to allow felons to vote in many states, based on the same demographic no doubt. (Canada has allowed prisoners to vote for years, and the sky still hasn’t fallen in.)
What about making the community a better place to live? Why isn’t neighbourhood watch an option?
The sky isn’t falling in Canada? Then what’s that white stuff we’ve been seeing?
I agree that the rules on what priviledges you have should be based on a real assesment of the risks involved to the general public. But, as I’ve already said, I expect some people wouldn’t get back the priviledges they want.
