Here we go again: HR45 "The Firearm Licensing Act of 2009"

[Dogbert]

I'm not saying an Alarm is a bad idea, but not everyone is scared away by an alarm. Most burglars know that it takes the police at least 5-10 minutes to respond to an alarm call. In that time, you can take quite a bit of stuff and be gone.

While that's true, making a huge "HEY WHAT THE FUCK" commotion to the alarm will scare those burglars away, because they know someone could ruin their shit much sooner than 5-10 minutes. And if it doesn't scare them off? They're not only armed, but they're waiting for you, so you had much bigger problems than simple theft before that alarm even sounded.

 

[Crazyjeeper]

While that's true, making a huge "HEY WHAT THE FUCK" commotion to the alarm will scare those burglars away, because they know someone could ruin their shit much sooner than 5-10 minutes. And if it doesn't scare them off? They're not only armed, but they're waiting for you, so you had much bigger problems than simple theft before that alarm even sounded.

Also, couldn't the alarm have gone off automatically? There is no way that the burglar would know that it went off because you hit a button.

 

[Firecat]

Speaking as a person who had his house robbed by 4 armed men, an alarm is useless when you are sitting at home in the middle of the day watching television/doing homework.

That's not to say that your weapon will always be with you at home, but having it in your house gives you options at least. Because if you can't reach for a phone and don't have any protection, you are completely defenseless. There is no guarantee that a criminal won't kill you, why leave it up to chance?

 

[Dogbert]

Also, couldn't the alarm have gone off automatically? There is no way that the burglar would know that it went off because you hit a button.

I'm using a "button" as a proactive approach to dealing with burglars, the same way that a gun would, pushing the "non-confrontational but just as effective" angle more than anything.

My whole reservation to using a gun for defense-against-home-intruders is that you have no idea what the other guy is doing or has to defend against you. And, really, the "defense" part assumes that you get the jump on said burglar. Do you really want to take that gamble?

Speaking as a person who had his house robbed by 4 armed men, an alarm is useless when you are sitting at home in the middle of the day watching television/doing homework.

Well in that case, a gun would have been useless, too. I don't think anything could really be considered "useful" in that scenario, as that's pretty much worst case.

 

[Crazyjeeper]

I'm using a "button" as a proactive approach to dealing with burglars, the same way that a gun would, pushing the "non-confrontational but just as effective" angle more than anything.

My whole reservation to using a gun for defense-against-home-intruders is that you have no idea what the other guy is doing or has to defend against you. And, really, the "defense" part assumes that you get the jump on said burglar. Do you really want to take that gamble?


Well in that case, a gun would have been useless, too. I don't think anything could really be considered "useful" in that scenario, as that's pretty much worst case.

True, but if he is armed and you are not, you have a 0% chance of winning, should a confrontation occur. Also, in a dark house, I would have an advantage by knowing the terrain, so I think I would have a high probability of winning. Most people I know that keep a weapon for home defense are very serious about firearms training and are probably more proficient with their weapons than many cops.

 

[Firecat]

-

Well in that case, a gun would have been useless, too. I don't think anything could really be considered "useful" in that scenario, as that's pretty much worst case.

Like I said. It gives you an option. You know where the gun is, just a matter of getting to it.

And the only reason for using a panic button or calling cops is that they will respond with guns. Cut out the middle man.

 

[Dogbert]

True, but if he is armed and you are not, you have a 0% chance of winning, should a confrontation occur. Also, in a dark house, I would have an advantage by knowing the terrain, so I think I would have a high probability of winning. Most people I know that keep a weapon for home defense are very serious about firearms training and are probably more proficient with their weapons than many cops.

Oh no, I know how serious firearm training is, trust me. I'm also aware that the number of "oh god I thought little Timmy was a burglar" deaths is quite low, comparatively.

If you go and confront a burglar without proper protection, you're an idiot and deserve that 0% chance of winning. There's also no reason a burglar would come and find you, unless that person isn't a burglar at all, but a "keep the family covered" man while the real burglar(s) do their job... and if that's the case, chances were bleak of defending your home to begin with, because then you're probably dealing with professionals and you end up with what I imagine was Firecat's scenario.

Any self-respecting burglar knows where all the entry points are for the room that he's in, so I'm not sure "knowing the terrain" is much of an advantage. If they don't, chances are they're the "break into the main room and steal the most expensive thing that I can lift" variety.

 

[cvrefugee]

Like I said. It gives you an option. You know where the gun is, just a matter of getting to it.

And the only reason for using a panic button or calling cops is that they will respond with guns. Cut out the middle man.

Well, in Norway I hear the police don't carry guns, just lutefisk and wooden shoes. :lol:

 

[Plissken]

Weapons have never been just for hunting.

Just wondering, what country do you live in?

The UK.

I'm not going to get into a discussion with anyone (except of course, to use sarcasm) because being in two totally entrenched arguments at the same time is quite tiring.

I will say that the US attachment is (to bastardise the phrase) "gun in one hand, Bible in the other" and how you react to that is which side of the debate you are on.

 

[brydie76]

All I know is in Aus we have strict gun controls after the Port Arthur Massacre. Difficult to get a gun, and if you are rejected there are ways of appealing it. No major gun incidents since then that I can recall.

I'm not pro or anti gun. I just think that half the people in the world that own them probably don't need them.

 

[nomix]

I do tend to agree. While I believe gun ownership should be restricted to legitimate purposes such as for competition use or hunting (personally I don't think for self-defence is a legitimate need in most circumstances), I do believe that all fully trained police officers should be armed.

Not armed all the time, but I do believe they should have an arsenal of arms in their police cars.

The culture of the society plays a big role. Norway and Japan are similar insofar as that in one point of their history, they were a feudal society. And both moved on from that, a case of "so drunk you got sober", and thus a relatively passive culture. We have yet to go through that phase.

To me, the bottom line is this: Here is the U.S., the ones who advocate gun control have never handled a gun, nor never will. That is like sending pacifists to engage in war.

I've shot a bit, but not enough. I like shooting, though, and in time, I'll probably end up getting myself a revolver of some sorts for recreational shooting. It's not hard to do so in Norway, you need to be a member of a pistol club, and then you can buy one. You need a very solid weapon cabinet though, I believe.

Am I missing something here or does that statement follow logic so simple that it need not even be mentioned?

Well, it would seem that way. But one thing that's important is that if Norwegian police suspect someone is armed, they get approval to use guns. In those cases, they still threaten less with guns than Swedish police, and I also believe fewer officers get shot during armed missions in Norway compared to Sweden and Denmark. This might be because when a Swedish cop is using his gun, that's something he or she does most weeks, when a Norwegian cop does it, it's more organized and they won't get suprised by someone with a gun. They expect it.

Where does most American cops get shot? In traffic stops. Why? Cause they're not expecting anything.

 

[Twerp128]

It's pretty much a fact that even if you outlaw firearms, criminals will still have them. So the question really isn't firearm homocides, it's how do we train legitimate gun owners to be responsible.

 

[Plissken]

Godammit man, you want me to take responsibility for my own actions? Me? The voter?

 

[phuckingduck]

It's pretty much a fact that even if you outlaw firearms, criminals will still have them. So the question really isn't firearm homocides, it's how do we train legitimate gun owners to be responsible.

There's a question I feel your skipping (not focusing on you, just the argument). Where do the criminals guns come from? The gun fairy? Mexico? Canada? I would posit that most guns that are illegally possessed in America were at some point legally owned guns in America. The shear prevalence of guns, makes it easier to possess a gun both legally and illegally. If you shorten supply, and force gun owners to keep better track of their firearms, the ability of criminals to attain weapons will be curtailed. The question then becomes by how much can you curtail the black-market supply, and what will be the real world effect.

Yes the criminals will always have guns. But where do they get them from and how can we affect that chain of supply, and can we effectively curtail the flow of illegal guns without major impact on the rights of the citizenry?

 

[AiR]

I do not see the problem with regulating lethal goods. We have 30 guns per 100 people here, compared to the US which has 90 (and Nigeria which has 1).

The large portion is made up of hunting rifles, the rest of semi-automatic pistols. It's not hard to get a rifle, or a gun. You must not have a criminal record (duh), you must be a licensed hunter for hunting rifles or member of a gun club for pistols. If you want to store your guns at your home you need a approved gun cabinet.

I think these are fair requirements for possesion of a lethal weapon. And the weapons are used as intended to hunt or for target practice.

 

[nomix]

I have to agree. In some states (if not most?) I believe there is already a ban on gunowning if you've been comitted for a crime, or if you're mentally ill.

The constitution has no if's and but's in that regard, it does not give the government the right to restrict these groups from owning guns. I've not seen a single word about it. So in principle, that's unconstitutional.

Why aren't people rawing on about this, then?

 

[Twerp128]

^We definitely do restrict guns. My old boss had a semi-automatic AK47, he had to pay out the ass for the gun itself then to legally own it there is a $200 tax, a federal background check, and you need clearance from your cities chief of police. It took him three months to actually get the gun because of the massive amount of paperwork. It's not easy to get a gun legitimately in the US, but due to the sheer number of weapons in the US, most criminals are forced to go the back-alley gun dealer route. Which no amount of regulation will change.

 

[Blind_Io]

What it the point in restricting guns?
"To reduce crime!"

But we already have laws to reduce crime. Criminals, by definition, break the law so it will be the criminals who still have guns.
"Fewer guns means less crime!"

No, it doesn't. Fewer guns actually means more crime because, as we mentioned, the criminals will still break the law to get guns and now they know their intended victims are unarmed. Criminals don't like an armed population, it's more work and more risk.
"It will reduce violence!"

So guns equate to violence? When was the last time you saw the headline, "Deadly shooting at local firing range?" By that logic firing ranges are the places most likely to have gun crime and shootings since there is the highest number of weapons per person. No, shootings happen where guns are banned, such as schools. Someone intent on killing lots of people won't go to a police station or a firing range to do it, he's going to go where he knows people are unarmed.

If gun laws reduced crime we would not need them. Anything illegal you can do with a gun is already illegal under other laws. You don't need to say "It's illegal to kill someone with a gun" because we already have a law that says "It's illegal to kill someone." If the law "It's illegal to kill a person" doesn't stop people from killing, how would restricting the weapon make it any different? "I'm thinking about killing person X with this pistol... you know what, I'd better not, using this gun would be illegal."

Give me a fucking break.


Nomix, the reason no one is bitching about it is because felons give up many of their constitutional rights by committing a felony, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote. They gave up those rights by committing a cime, they were not taken away from someone who never broke the law. Big difference.

 

[Steve Levin]

Alcohol and tobacco are far deadlier weapons that are only lightly regulated. They should be much farther up on the list of being banned of severly limited than firearms.

Steve

 

[Firecat]

Cars kill as well and we let 15 year olds drive.