Gun control debate

[BigSqwert]

Gun safes have combination locks.

 

You are immediately at a disadvantage when your home is being burglarized in the middle of the night. The burglar is fully awake and in better shape to shoot a gun if they had one on them. Whereas you would be awakening from your sleep and potentially not fully aware of what is going on at that moment. I'd feel much better knowing that the second my door is opened or window is broken an ear piercing siren will go off and the alarm company is notified rather than shuffling around in the dark trying to open up a combination lock while half asleep.

 

It is established fact that the police do not have responsibility to protect individual citizens or their property. I posted one case and have read dozens of others that reaffirm this.

 

An alarm will scare away an intruder 99.99999% of the time. No gun needed.

 

It isn't just about murder. If you can stop the petty burglar and hold him until police arrive, you've removed another scumbag from the streets.

You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. It's obvious you have a desire to become some type of vigilante. I'll let the police do their job.

[Dan]

With kids around also? I decided when my youngest was tottling around that the risks of them finds one of my guns and having an accident was greater than a criminal breaking into my home. I don't think a shot gun is very good home protection unless it is unlocked and loaded and ready to go. Most stories I've heard has the intruder already in your home by the time you hear them.

As soon as the intruder heres the chec-chec of a buckshot being slid into the chamber, that intruder will be out of that house so quick he won't even have time to piss his pants.

[NorthSideSox72]

It is established fact that the police do not have responsibility to protect individual citizens or their property. I posted one case and have read dozens of others that reaffirm this.

I call B.S. Of course they have responsibility to protect individual citizens, AND their property. Otherwise, why are there trespassing laws? Or burglary laws? And I know for damn well sure those laws are enforced to protect citizens, because I've done it.

 

Now, there may be isolated cases where police took to long to respond, or didn't act in the way property owners wanted them to. But your statement that they don't have responsibility is false. If you have some sort of evidence regarding the law and the police's role that support your statement?

[BigSqwert]

As soon as the intruder heres the chec-chec of a buckshot being slid into the chamber, that intruder will be out of that house so quick he won't even have time to piss his pants.

Seems like an unnecessary risk when there are other options. And where do you all live where there are all these intruders breaking in all the time? I've lived in some shady areas over the years and have yet to have a problem. Again, an alarm will scare off an intruder if not deter them in the first place.

 

I call B.S.

You rang? Oh....I thought you meant BigSqwert.

[NorthSideSox72]

Crowbar > dead bolt

 

Police and alarm systems take time to respond. Time you may not have. Besides, it has been tested in court and affirmed numerous times that the police force's duty is to protect the community, not the individuals.

 

http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/policeno.html

Keep your gun locked up and next to your bed. You hear someone breaking in, quietly and quickly unlock the safe. Its not like the intruder is going to charge into the bedroom first. They're probably going to root around the living room and other areas for electronics and other valuables and avoid people. A lock isn't that complicated to open, its not like putting in nuclear launch codes.

crowbar > deadbolt? A shotgun is the best home defense? Where are these lines of logic coming from?

 

Think this through. Someone is considering violating your property or person in some way. They see the outside of a house/apartment. Do they see your shotgun? Or your crowbar? Of course not. They see windows and doors, alarm system signs, deadbolts, lighting exposure, vehicles present, lights on or off inside, indications of movement inside, etc. Those sorts of things are what prompts the guy to break in or not. Your shotgun or other weapon won't come into play 99.9999% of the time. So to say they are somehow a superior method of home defense defies logic.

 

Again, I am 100% OK with people having guns. And yes, there are the rare circumstances where they could come in handy for home defense. But they are not even in the same league of effectiveness as preventative measures.

 

ETA: Regarding the article you cited, even though the article is titled about a lack of responsbility, the facts don't state that at all. Its about negligence, that they were noted found to have. The police absolutely have a duty to protect citizens and their property, even though in some instances they may not have a civil liability for the results of what they were not able to do (or, in some cases, what they just plain screwed up).

Edited April 23, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[EvilMonkey]

You are immediately at a disadvantage when your home is being burglarized in the middle of the night. The burglar is fully awake and in better shape to shoot a gun if they had one on them. Whereas you would be awakening from your sleep and potentially not fully aware of what is going on at that moment. I'd feel much better knowing that the second my door is opened or window is broken an ear piercing siren will go off and the alarm company is notified rather than shuffling around in the dark trying to open up a combination lock while half asleep.

An alarm will scare away an intruder 99.99999% of the time. No gun needed.

You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. It's obvious you have a desire to become some type of vigilante. I'll let the police do their job.

Then you keep living in your mental utopia, safe from all the crazy people with guns. I'll just post a sign sayig my house is protected by a Baretta and a dog, try next door; he's an anti-gun person.

 

My father in law lives about 25 miles north of Branson Missouri, and if it wasn't for guns, there would be no (close and/or fast) protection. The nearest police station is a 15 minute drive on a good DAY with noone else on the road. At night, with the twisting narrow roads, double that. He managed to stop an intruder with his gun, which was in a safe that he managed to open before said assailant/robber made it to the upstairs. He had killed the dog with a bat, which is what woke him up in the first place. An alarm system there wouldn't have done much good, unless the crook decided to stay for tea afterwards. Not saying they are bad, in fact, they are good. I am glad for you that you have one. And being on the third floor also helps you. but many others are not in your situation. As for not being fully awake, you are assuming that they are either breaking into your room, or are rushing up the stairs to get you before you awake. Sure, some people are very slow when it comes to waking up. But when I hear a strange noise, or the dog bark, I am wide awake instantly. Drives me nuts trying to get back to sleep. I respect your decision NOT to have a gun. Now, leave mine alone.

 

Seems like an unnecessary risk when there are other options. And where do you all live where there are all these intruders breaking in all the time? I've lived in some shady areas over the years and have yet to have a problem. Again, an alarm will scare off an intruder if not deter them in the first place.

You rang? Oh....I thought you meant BigSqwert.

In my 18 years as a homeowner, I have had my garage broken into twice, and my car broken into twice, and an apparent attempt at getting into the house once, evident by the huge scapes from some sort of tool around the deadbolt. And prior to that, 2 years of apartment living had a car break in and a break in across the hall from my apartment.

[BigSqwert]

In my 18 years as a homeowner, I have had my garage broken into twice, and my car broken into twice, and an apparent attempt at getting into the house once, evident by the huge scapes from some sort of tool around the deadbolt. And prior to that, 2 years of apartment living had a car break in and a break in across the hall from my apartment.

Wow. You must have killed a lot of burglars.

[EvilMonkey]

Wow. You must have killed a lot of burglars.

I suppose it was a mistake on my part to expect some sort of an intelligent answer or response. What a smart-ass type of response that was. What, nothing to say or add about what i said that would bolster your position, so you resort to cheap one-liners? You are an intellectual pussy. You need to read Balta or LCR more often as they generally give much more intelligent responses. Or at the very least, funnier snark.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my 18 years as a homeowner, I have had my garage broken into twice, and my car broken into twice, and an apparent attempt at getting into the house once, evident by the huge scapes from some sort of tool around the deadbolt. And prior to that, 2 years of apartment living had a car break in and a break in across the hall from my apartment.

...and when did you decide to make a change in protecting yourself? After ALL of that happened? Or did you start taking a "Dirty Harry" approach in the middle of that sequence?

[EvilMonkey]

...and when did you decide to make a change in protecting yourself? After ALL of that happened? Or did you start taking a "Dirty Harry" approach in the middle of that sequence?

Between the first and second garage breakin was when the handgun joined my house. I had a shotgun prior. The two car break ins and the first garage break in all happened within 2 weeks of each other. No shooting at people, to date. Also helps that I moved. I still have shotgun, Baretta and Sox giveaway bat all in my room, just in case, along with another Sox bat behind the coat rack downstairs.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Between the first and second garage breakin was when the handgun joined my house. I had a shotgun prior. The two car break ins and the first garage break in all happened within 2 weeks of each other. No shooting at people, to date. Also helps that I moved. I still have shotgun, Baretta and Sox giveaway bat all in my room, just in case, along with another Sox bat behind the coat rack downstairs.

So you are admitting that the guns did not stop the crime, and that moving was more of a contribution than owning a weapon?

Edited April 23, 2007 by santo=dorf

[NorthSideSox72]

As SS2K5 pointed out earlier... its amazing the extremities that this argument brings out. People on both sides of the issue manage to throw logic out the window to try to make their point.

[EvilMonkey]

So you are admitting that the guns did not stop the crime, and that moving was more of a contribution than owning a weapon?

No, I admit nothing of the sort. It's not like when you own a gun a magical shield falls down over your house and defends you from future harm. The last garage breakin happened when I was out of state, so pretty much nothing would have stopped that. If I had been home, it could have been a different story. Nice try on your 'jump to conclusions' mat.

 

As SS2K5 pointed out earlier... its amazing the extremities that this argument brings out. People on both sides of the issue manage to throw logic out the window to try to make their point.

You are right, passions run deep on both ends. Note that I did not disparage the use of alarms, etc, in fact applauded the use of them. I was just hoping for the same level of respect for my choice to augment my security with a firearm. instead, I get condesention and poor attempts at snark.

[BigSqwert]

You are right, passions run deep on both ends. Note that I did not disparage the use of alarms, etc, in fact applauded the use of them. I was just hoping for the same level of respect for my choice to augment my security with a firearm. instead, I get condesention and poor attempts at snark.

Please explain to me how owning a gun has helped you in any way. How is a potential burglar to know that you even own one?

[EvilMonkey]

Please explain to me how owning a gun has helped you in any way. How is a potential burglar to know that you even own one?

Please explain to me how my owning a gun has hurt you in any way? So far, in defense of my home, it hasn't. it also hasn't hurt. And I use the shotgun for hunting. Wanna go hunting? I am a better shot than Dick Chaney, trust me. You can have your alarms and 911. I want to add firepower.

[StrangeSox]

You are immediately at a disadvantage when your home is being burglarized in the middle of the night. The burglar is fully awake and in better shape to shoot a gun if they had one on them. Whereas you would be awakening from your sleep and potentially not fully aware of what is going on at that moment. I'd feel much better knowing that the second my door is opened or window is broken an ear piercing siren will go off and the alarm company is notified rather than shuffling around in the dark trying to open up a combination lock while half asleep.

An alarm will scare away an intruder 99.99999% of the time. No gun needed.

 

Right, the adrenaline of someone breaking into your house wouldn't wake you up. Besides, I'm not saying one or the other. Alarm systems can be great. Just having a sign saying "this home protected by ADT," even if its not, makes your house a less likely target than your neighbor who doesn't have the sign.

 

You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. It's obvious you have a desire to become some type of vigilante.

I have no desire to be a vigilante, I'd just like the ability to protect myself from criminals. The police cannot be everywhere at once and response times in many areas leave a lot to be desired.

 

I'll let the police do their job.

The policeman's job does not involve protecting the individual. You have to fend for yourself. It has many legal precedents indicating this.

 

 

 

I call B.S. Of course they have responsibility to protect individual citizens, AND their property. Otherwise, why are there trespassing laws? Or burglary laws? And I know for damn well sure those laws are enforced to protect citizens, because I've done it.

 

Now, there may be isolated cases where police took to long to respond, or didn't act in the way property owners wanted them to. But your statement that they don't have responsibility is false. If you have some sort of evidence regarding the law and the police's role that support your statement?

 

Look at the article I posted. A court ruled that the police's responsibility is to the community, not the individual. These sights have an obvious slant, but they're citing legal cases that you are free to look up.

 

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

 

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

 

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

 

crowbar > deadbolt? A shotgun is the best home defense? Where are these lines of logic coming from?

 

Think this through. Someone is considering violating your property or person in some way. They see the outside of a house/apartment. Do they see your shotgun? Or your crowbar? Of course not. They see windows and doors, alarm system signs, deadbolts, lighting exposure, vehicles present, lights on or off inside, indications of movement inside, etc. Those sorts of things are what prompts the guy to break in or not. Your shotgun or other weapon won't come into play 99.9999% of the time. So to say they are somehow a superior method of home defense defies logic.

 

The crowbar comment was meant to show that a criminal with a crowbar doesn't give two s***s about a deadbolt because it doesn't pose much of an obstacle.

 

And if I'm talking about home defense, I'm assuming that the criminal is already breaking into the house. The rest of that stuff applies whether or not you have a gun so it doesn't really matter. The argument isn't "guns and nothing or no guns and everything else."

 

Please explain to me how owning a gun has helped you in any way. How is a potential burglar to know that you even own one?

 

It's not about scaring away potential burglars. Its about having a line of defense once they've decided to enter your house.

Edited April 23, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

As SS2K5 pointed out earlier... its amazing the extremities that this argument brings out. People on both sides of the issue manage to throw logic out the window to try to make their point.

 

I believe 90% of the difference is where you grew up/what kind of environment you live in. And i'm not talking shady ghetto versus rich suburb. Anyone who grew up/lived for a while in a home with some land slightly outside of town will have a completely different view of guns than someone who has lived in a 3 flat or bungalo within city limits their entire life. It's different experiences growing up dealing with the police and with criminals (even if indirectly).

 

And I love the attitude on this board sometimes. Why is it that you should never have X unless the government or society says it's ok. Shouldn't it be that you can always have X unless the government or society say its not. (the perfect liberal/conservative divide).

 

Someone who owns a gun shouldn't have to prove that having it does good. Instead YOU should have to prove that it harms people in some way.

[NorthSideSox72]

The policeman's job does not involve protecting the individual. You have to fend for yourself. It has many legal precedents indicating this.

Look at the article I posted. A court ruled that the police's responsibility is to the community, not the individual. These sights have an obvious slant, but they're citing legal cases that you are free to look up.

 

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

 

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

 

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

Those sites aren't just slanted. Two of the three have obvious misspellings on the front page. They are twisting facts. And, again, it is NOT TRUE that the police's job does not involve protecting the individual. Take a look at the facts of those cases on those sites, where they can be found. Police do not have the responsiblity for continuing protection (like personal security), and they do not have civil liability for things they didn't fix. But that is NOT the same as saying they have no responsibility to protect citizens, which is simply an untrue statement.

[StrangeSox]

Those sites aren't just slanted. Two of the three have obvious misspellings on the front page. They are twisting facts. And, again, it is NOT TRUE that the police's job does not involve protecting the individual. Take a look at the facts of those cases on those sites, where they can be found. Police do not have the responsiblity for continuing protection (like personal security), and they do not have civil liability for things they didn't fix. But that is NOT the same as saying they have no responsibility to protect citizens, which is simply an untrue statement.

 

"A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.)

 

How does that not clearly state that the State has no duty to protect an individual against private violence?

 

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/46CA3d6.htm

 

Courts have ruled over and over that they don't have a duty to provide police protection services, and most of these cases stem from the police not responding properly to a 911 call. The courts have decided that the law does not say they have to give you private protection, even if you report a crime being committed or fear one soon will be (with good cause).

 

Those situations, in which they are not required to protect, are why you need to be prepared to protect yourself.

Edited April 24, 2007 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

"A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.)

 

How does that not clearly state that the State has no duty to protect an individual against private violence?

 

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/46CA3d6.htm

 

Courts have ruled over and over that they don't have a duty to provide police protection services, and most of these cases stem from the police not responding properly to a 911 call. The courts have decided that the law does not say they have to give you private protection, even if you report a crime being committed or fear one soon will be (with good cause).

 

Those situations, in which they are not required to protect, are why you need to be prepared to protect yourself.

That statement is telling you that the state does not have an obligation to provide protective services, which is true. It is ALSO true that police departments do indeed have a duty to respond to, and to the extent possible, prevent crime. They have a duty as prescribed by whatever law created that police presense/department. The state, as in mainline state law, does not have a guarantee of protection.

 

There is an important difference between these things. Yes, the police have a duty to protect. No, the state's law does not provide a guarantee of that protection. That is what that says, and it is one of the mainline facts of police work. It is the reason why police are expected (in a job role sense) to fulfill their duties, BUT, they are generally shielded from successful law suits (except in situations of negligence, gross misconduct or reckless abandonment) because the state does not guarantee anyone's safety. There are two different legal affirmations at work here - the state's obligations, and the services provided by local or state government.

[StrangeSox]

Police were called to respond to 9-11 calls of crimes-in-progress or soon to be.

 

They did not respond. People were raped and/ or brutalized, or even murdered.

 

Courts ruled they had no responsibility to respond and were not liable for their actions or in-actions in the case.

 

That's why I would like to defend my own home instead of relying on the police "to do their job."

 

If they have a responsibility to protect the individual, why were they not responsible in these cases?

Edited April 24, 2007 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Police were called to respond to 9-11 calls of crimes-in-progress or soon to be.

 

They did not respond. People were raped and/ or brutalized, or even murdered.

 

Courts ruled they had no responsibility to respond and were not liable for their actions or in-actions in the case.

 

That's why I would like to defend my own home instead of relying on the police "to do their job."

 

If they have a responsibility to protect the individual, why were they not responsible in these cases?

There is an admitedly subtle, but still very important legal difference here that I must not be describing well. I'm obviously not going to get the point across.

 

In any case, this whole argument that has been made here that a gun is somehow the best defense for your home is just unfounded in any sort of reality. Feel free to have one, I think you should have the right. But if you think its more reliable than all the other stuff discussed here, then you are deluding yourself. Its simple math... a few hundred times a year, someone fends off a burglar with a gun. Tens of thousands of times a year, burglaries are successful. Take than number and multiply it by another large number to reflect how many attempts are aborted due to some preventative measure. On the list of effective methods of protecting your home and its contents, guns are far below all those things.

[Controlled Chaos]

Maybe some people just want to bust a cap in someones ass for breaking into their house.

[southsider2k5]

[Dan]

Seems like an unnecessary risk when there are other options. And where do you all live where there are all these intruders breaking in all the time? I've lived in some shady areas over the years and have yet to have a problem. Again, an alarm will scare off an intruder if not deter them in the first place.

You rang? Oh....I thought you meant BigSqwert.

Sure there are other options and I would take advantage of eveyone of them. One can never be to safe. A responsible gun owner who has children will have their weapon in a secure spot that they know about, is easily accessible and maybe even in an area that only they will know. An alarm can be disable and is not the end all be all. As to living in crappy places and never getting broken into, consider yourself lucky. I sure hope you don't consider Lakeview or somethin shady.