Gun laws in USA

You're making that world tougher than it needs to be, though. Sorry, but living here, in Heidelberg, with no recorded homicide in like 18 months or so, neighboring the city of Mannheim, which is a bit larger than Denver, and infamous for it's high crime rate, which didn't record a homicide in 2 years, I kind of have to look over the pond from up my mighty steed, and make an arrogant statement:

You're really making the bed you have to sleep in. Is that an expression in english? Either way: you can't just say "it's a tough world";
It's mainly a tough world because every thug and their little sister has an assault rifle and a grenade launcher. It would be a much less tough world, if all they had were steak knives.

I'm not saying that it's entirely wrong what you said, but your stance really helps out people who take it a step further, and cynically say "well, it's all FUBAR anyway, let's just keep guns to help defend us against guns."

I know you yourself aren't really advocating that, but you're playing into those people's hands.

In the school shooting thread, I made the only point I'd personally accept in favor of no increase in gun control, and that's cultural and political.
I will fully accept the argument, if made, that American culture is built on individual liberty, and the populace being a legitimate threat to the government as a built-in safeguard against tyranny.
But then you have to have the guts to stand up and say "this is worth 10k dead innocents each year", if someone is willing to publicly make that point, I'll say that it's a valid point.

But mostly, from pro-gun activists, you just get hypocritical watering-down of facts and half-truths. I really think American culture is the only proper argument against gun control there is, since anything else is easily destroyed by crime statistics in countries with gun control.

(Edit: There were two homicides in late fall though, I just remembered, the statistic I quoted was from the summer. But still, those were two dead in a mass-brawl including severel stabbings involving two rival motorcycle gangs.)

Here's what President Obama is willing to put on the table for his push for gun control.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html

Some proposals there that I think will genuinely make an impact and some others that are going to have real trouble getting implemented in GOP-controlled states.

So recently a German exchange student was shot to death after he crept into someone's house in the middle of the night with the intent to steal. Two recent burglaries already had the Montana homeowner on the edge and when his motion detectors detected an intruder he pulled the trigger.

He was totally justified in using deadly force IMO. If someone's going to creep in your house like that in the middle of the night then you simply cannot give him/her the benefit of the doubt and you should be authorized to defend yourself. It's not unreasonable to assume that the guy who's creeping in might be an armed felon trying to escape the cops and just decided to hold you hostage in your own house. There can never be a good reason to do an illegal activity like that, and when there's that kind of threat, well, that's why you have the right to bear arms.

It's unfortunate that the silly burglary attempt the kid tried to perform had to end like this, but one stupid decision is enough to *bleep* up your life. The Montana gun laws make it clear that "residents can use force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an assault on themselves or someone else in the home" so the homeowner supposedly has not done anything illegal. And rightly so.

Well, from what I read, that guy specifically set up his garage as trap and left it open as he wanted to hunt down and kill possible burglars. That is something else than having someone trying to break in somewhere in a shut building. He could have just closed the garage door, trapping the guy inside and call the police, and everything would have been fine.

It's no surprise that the NYT would try to paint the would-be burglar in this incident as the victim. Ad hominem defences of criminals, and the villifying and blaming of their victims, is a liberal specialty. "Awww, he was just a wittle boy twying to play a wittle joke". I mean, how dare the guy whose home he entered illegally not just let him take what he wanted and go. Why didn't he just ask him to leave nicely like a good home robbery victim? And if all that failed, he should have gone with rwo's plan and tried to hold him up Old West bank robbery-style in the pitch black, not knowing who he was, how old he was, in what physical shape he was, what his intentions were, and what weapons he had on him. Sure, it could have meant putting himself and his family at risk, but sacrifices must be made and chances taken in order to protect the well-being of criminals from their victims. I mean, he only left his own door in his own home partly opened for his own convenience, so he def had it coming to him anyway.

If somebody breaks into your home, you should absolutely be allowed to kill them

Putting you and your family + possessions at risk for the well being of a thief. Lol.

Shed wrote:It's no surprise that the NYT would try to paint the would-be burglar in this incident as the victim. Ad hominem defences of criminals, and the villifying and blaming of their victims, is a liberal specialty. "Awww, he was just a wittle boy twying to play a wittle joke". I mean, how dare the guy whose home he entered illegally not just let him take what he wanted and go.

you'll probably enjoy this audio then, with the brave homeowner bravely defending himself against not one, but two teenage murderers, by bravely wounding them and then bravely executing them... especially the girl who was pretending to scream for her life, who knows what trickery she could have pulled to threaten this brave man... truly a hero, a real human bean

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvweUXvVmU

i know you kids take these things seriously but your xbox and tv isn't worth anybody's life

It's not unreasonable to assume that the guy who's creeping in might be an armed felon trying to escape the cops and just decided to hold you hostage in your own house. There can never be a good reason to do an illegal activity like that, and when there's that kind of threat, well, that's why you have the right to bear arms.

i'd also like to talk about how *bleep* idiotic this thinking is... it is, in fact, extremely unreasonable to assume that it's an escaped felon - how many cases of armed escaped criminals holding families hostage have you heard of, besides "law abiding citizen"? what do you think is more likely, that the person breaking into your house wants to violently murder you and your family, or it's just a petty thief looking for small electronics? i'll let you figure out the statistics on that yourself

then again i don't fantasize about killing people so what do i know

Well, this such a difficult, difficult subject... There probably isn't a 100% right answer to this.

The chances that a burglar is a threat to your (homeowner's) physical well-being are low. Depending also whereabouts the world you are. But you still cannot know it for sure, so I guess I understand using lethal force to defend your home. The intruders should realize that they risk getting killed if they break into someone's house.


However, in that German student's case where the guy and his woman had purposefully left their garage door open and the woman's handbag on display there as a bait, that's so messed up that if it was up to me they would go to jail.

The shooting doesn't sound at all justified to me. This sounds like premeditated murder.

He knew these kids were coming, set a trap for them, and then calmly, lucidly and quite deliberately murdered them in cold blood before trying to hide behind self-defense.

Unless these kids were armed and got a shot off at him first, he's got very little to no defense here.

This is a farcry from him being sleep in his bed, hearing a noise, grabbing a gun and shooting the first thing he saw creeping through his house. That's self-defense and that's not what happened.

rwo power wrote:There is one thing that just sprang to my mind - don't you think it is sad that  in a country that considers itself highly civilised and the epitome of Western culture and morals, the majority of citizens seem to feel they need a killing weapon to feel safe?

Lol, no. The guns are there because we are a people with a government and not a government that has a people. The United States is a nation of the self governed which unlike other areas of the world hopefully wont solve problems through banning of tools but through remedying of causes.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:The United States is a nation of the self governed which unlike other areas of the world hopefully wont solve problems through banning of tools but through remedying of causes.

Hm. If you look at how many kids shoot others in the US, the cause of these deaths seems to be closely related to the free availability of the tools.

Guns should be banned everywhere, I don't understand the fact that you should feel safer with a gun, doesn't make any sense to me. I have never in my life seen an actual gun, and I couldn't feel safer.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

rwo power wrote:There is one thing that just sprang to my mind - don't you think it is sad that  in a country that considers itself highly civilised and the epitome of Western culture and morals, the majority of citizens seem to feel they need a killing weapon to feel safe?

Lol, no. The guns are there because we are a people with a government and not a government that has a people. The United States is a nation of the self governed which unlike other areas of the world hopefully wont solve problems through banning of tools but through remedying of causes.

If you think we're "self-governing" you're having a laugh.

We are a plutocratic oligarchy at best.

widespread availability of point and click murder tools of course not being a cause for any problem whatsoever

che wrote:

It's not unreasonable to assume that the guy who's creeping in might be an armed felon trying to escape the cops and just decided to hold you hostage in your own house. There can never be a good reason to do an illegal activity like that, and when there's that kind of threat, well, that's why you have the right to bear arms.

i'd also like to talk about how *bleep* idiotic this thinking is... it is, in fact, extremely unreasonable to assume that it's an escaped felon - how many cases of armed escaped criminals holding families hostage have you heard of, besides "law abiding citizen"? what do you think is more likely, that the person breaking into your house wants to violently murder you and your family, or it's just a petty thief looking for small electronics? i'll let you figure out the statistics on that yourself

then again i don't fantasize about killing people so what do i know

If there is a stranger in your house at night, you don't give a shit what is more "likely". You just give a damn that there is a threat to you/your family and you are not under any reasonable obligation to assume the best about the man that's just broken into your home. In the real world, you don't calmly go back to sleep safe in the knowledge that the man is not a bad man, he just wants your Gameboy. For your own protection you rightly prepare for the worst

McLewis wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

rwo power wrote:There is one thing that just sprang to my mind - don't you think it is sad that  in a country that considers itself highly civilised and the epitome of Western culture and morals, the majority of citizens seem to feel they need a killing weapon to feel safe?

Lol, no. The guns are there because we are a people with a government and not a government that has a people. The United States is a nation of the self governed which unlike other areas of the world hopefully wont solve problems through banning of tools but through remedying of causes.

If you think we're "self-governing" you're having a laugh.

We are a plutocratic oligarchy at best.

No matter what your or my perception of the reality is the fact remains that the constitution aims to design such a system. Gun crimes are like hate speech, they are a negative consequence of having free speech and gun rights but the solution is not to extinguish those rights.

DuringTheWar wrote:

If there is a stranger in your house at night, you don't give a shit what is more "likely". You just give a damn that there is a threat to you/your family and you are not under any reasonable obligation to assume the best about the man that's just broken into your home. In the real world, you don't calmly go back to sleep safe in the knowledge that the man is not a bad man, he just wants your Gameboy. For your own protection you rightly prepare for the worst

going back to sleep and shooting the "intruder" repeatedly in the face are not the only options

Surprised I haven't posted in here yet

Anyways I've considered buying a gun, but I don't currently own any and I'm in favor of more strict regulations but I also believe law-abiding citizens should have the right to own them

Not sure how I feel about concealed/open carry

In any case though, the NRA's gotta FOH

rwo power wrote:Well, from what I read, that guy specifically set up his garage as trap and left it open as he wanted to hunt down and kill possible burglars. That is something else than having someone trying to break in somewhere in a shut building. He could have just closed the garage door, trapping the guy inside and call the police, and everything would have been fine.

What guarantee can you give about the intentions of the deceased student? First, the situation you have set up is unpractical. I don't think the homeowner could have closed the garage door without first making contact with the intruder, which would endanger the owner's safety regardless of whether the intruder was armed. In addition, what guarantee is there that, should the homeowner somehow manage to close the garage without making contact, that the intruder would then not try to break open the door leading to the inside of the house? What if the door leading to the inside of the house is unlocked? Why give a criminal so many options to begin with? Not only that, but if this situation does pan out as such are you not endangering the police officers themselves? Their expectations would be limited to hoping that as the main garage door opens for them to investigate, the criminal hopefully doesn't have a weapon which he starts blazing on the cops.

I was not aware that the homeowner had done this to set-up a trap, as it was not stated in the article. That may just as well be a fabricated piece. However, even if it was some sort of a trap, the use of deadly force was still justified in my opinion because the intruder still posed a threat to the homeowner and his family. I don't understand the need to victimize the only criminal in this whole scenario (the exchange student) when he was the one who decided to break the law and endanger someone else's well-being. An open garage door does not mean that an unwelcome individual can simply walk in and steal, and in the process claim he was invited because the homeowner left his own garage door open for his own convenience.

che wrote:

It's not unreasonable to assume that the guy who's creeping in might be an armed felon trying to escape the cops and just decided to hold you hostage in your own house. There can never be a good reason to do an illegal activity like that, and when there's that kind of threat, well, that's why you have the right to bear arms.

i'd also like to talk about how *bleep* idiotic this thinking is... it is, in fact, extremely unreasonable to assume that it's an escaped felon - how many cases of armed escaped criminals holding families hostage have you heard of, besides "law abiding citizen"? what do you think is more likely, that the person breaking into your house wants to violently murder you and your family, or it's just a petty thief looking for small electronics? i'll let you figure out the statistics on that yourself

then again i don't fantasize about killing people so what do i know

No one is fantasizing about killing people. This is a matter of protecting one's own well-being as well as your loved ones'. If someone threatens that as the deceased student did in this scenario, then you have the right to protect yourself as well as others. What else is the point of carrying firearms?

If someone is willing to break into your house in such a manner, then yes it is reasonable to assume the worst. It is reasonable to assume that the intruder may be armed. Why? The intruder needs that to protect him/herself should he/she get caught, especially if he/she is really engaged with the underworld. Have you not heard of armed robberies? This is not a foreign concept.  

You seem to want to give the criminal the benefit of the doubt and hope that he is just a one-time, nonviolence-preaching criminal doing nothing suspicious other than robbing your house! Luck won't always go your way with that kind of thinking, and should the intruder get violent, the likelihood of which is high, then you'll be left with people just feeling sorry for you, but it is your life that would have been *bleep*.

@El Chelsea

Don't you have garage doors that you can open and close via remote control in the US? o_O (Frankly, I find an automatic garage door far more useful than an automatic gun. ^^)

Also, what kind of retarded comparison is this?

Even in the most barbaric countries, burglary gets your hands cut off, it doesn't get you executed. So why do you need to shoot someone for that?
And the security argument is only valid because every bloody burglar has a handgun because you have shitty gun laws - it's a spiral of retardation I can't even begin to fathom.

rwo power wrote:@El Chelsea

Don't you have garage doors that you can open and close via remote control in the US? o_O (Frankly, I find an automatic garage door far more useful than an automatic gun.  ^^)

Well I only have one remote and it's in the car all the time

El Chelsea Fuerte wrote:

rwo power wrote:@El Chelsea

Don't you have garage doors that you can open and close via remote control in the US? o_O (Frankly, I find an automatic garage door far more useful than an automatic gun.  ^^)

Well I only have one remote and it's in the car all the time

If you set up your garage as trap, you could as well take the remote along and use the garage as proper trap and not as death trap excuse so that you can have fun executing a live human being in cold blood.

So laws against unlawful entering and burglary, and the rights self-defence conferred to those upon whom they are committed, become null and void upon the opening of one's door?


Interesting.

Shed wrote:So laws against unlawful entering and burglary, and the rights self-defence conferred to those upon whom they are committed, become null and void upon the opening of one's door?


Interesting.

Only when opening one's door is part of an intentional trap to lure a person or persons in in order to injure or kill them.