# Them Texans loves their guns



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

http://xicanopwr.com/2008/08/texas-education-arming-teachers-to-teach/

I am not in to gun control but this may be going a little too far.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

[youtube=Option]eFcVwDw4YLE[/youtube]


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Man, I cannot tell you how strongly I support this.

The rampages and slaughters of the loonytoons make the headlines but the ones that get stopped because someone 'held them accountable' hardly ever do. Look around the net if you are so inclined, there are almost as many examples (US only, for obvious reasons) of armed good samaritans putting a potential slaughter to an immediate stop as there are atrocities.

Already a borderline political thread so I'll stop there.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> Man, I cannot tell you how strongly I support this.


You're kidding?!?!


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

If someone walks into a school hell bent on devastation, I'd rather have someone at hand with the potential to stop them. That simple.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> If someone walks into a school hell bent on devastation, I'd rather have someone at hand with the potential to stop them. That simple.


So, hire security.
What happens if the person walking into the school hell bent on destruction is the teacher? And he's armed? This is John Wayne Mission Accomplished macho silverback posturing right wing NRA-pandering bullshit.
I especially love how this is the only part of the US constitution the gun nuts seem to care about (well, that and the whole 'freedom of speech' if, and only if, that parses out as 'teaching creationism in science class').

Of course, if it weren't so easy for homicidal loonies (like the nutter at Virginia Tech last year) to get guns in the first place, it might not be such a problem (which it isn't in countries with sane gun laws BTW). In most places when this happens there is usually a move to find out what can be done to stop it in future by stopping the nutters getting guns; in the US the answer is to make sure more people have guns. Statistically that's just a bad idea.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Well, I suppose not every school has a budget for full time security. Nothing wrong with the proposition though.

Go look up England's crime stats in the time since they banned guns. Or Australias. Both have skyrocketed, because the criminals know there's no risk of accidentally running into someone able to defend themselves. This is fact, not conservative rhetoric.

Legal guns in the hands of legal owners commit almost no crimes. Any criminal who wants one bad enough can get one, whether in Canada or elsewhere. Why only have them in the hands of those who are bent on doing evil? Reread my first post then go do a little reading, if you are so inclined. But some of you won't want to read (or believe what you read).

I'll not reply to any more emotion based posts. I'm not interested in any more "This is John Wayne Mission Accomplished macho silverback posturing right wing NRA-pandering bullshit" comments, if you feel that strongly we have no common ground on the subject. 

Yes, I am part of the Canadian gun community.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> Well, I suppose not every school has a budget for full time security. Nothing wrong with the proposition though.


Except of course that it's bringing a loaded firearm into a school classroom. I've heard of kids being expelled for bringing staplers to school. 


keto said:


> Go look up England's crime stats in the time since they banned guns. Or Australias. Both have skyrocketed, because the criminals know there's no risk of accidentally running into someone able to defend themselves. This is fact, not conservative rhetoric.


Neatly sidestepping the issue. It's gun-owner rationalisation 101. Now go look up the UK's deaths resulting from violent crime rates and compare and contrast with the US. You say _crime _stats...that includes shoplifters and jaywalkers and people who don't pay their TV license...


keto said:


> Legal guns in the hands of legal owners commit almost no crimes. Any criminal who wants one bad enough can get one, whether in Canada or elsewhere. Why only have them in the hands of those who are bent on doing evil?


Almost no crime? But when they do, someone gets killed.








Seung-Hui Cho::Legal gun owner (killed: 32)









Charles Whitman::Legal gun owner (killed: 17)









Thomas Watt Hamilton::Legal gun owner (killed: 17)



keto said:


> I'll stop now and not reply any more. I'm not interested in any more "This is John Wayne Mission Accomplished macho silverback posturing right wing NRA-pandering bullshit" comments, if you feel that strongly we have no common ground on the subject.


Looks like we agree on something after all. 


keto said:


> Yes, I am part of the Canadian gun community.


I figured that out already.

Here's an interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
Notice there are three sections for notable school shootings:
One for the USA: n=44, death toll 172 
One for Canada: n=8, death toll 25 
Rest of the world: n=16,death toll 100


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> http://xicanopwr.com/2008/08/texas-education-arming-teachers-to-teach/
> I am not in to gun control but this may be going a little too far.


And may I present this guy from "Republic of Texas 1836 to Present": http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=442379

Am I the only one that finds TGP depressing?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

NO FIREARMS point and final..that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever read,,,"what!..you did'nt do your assignement?..him..see this!..yeah kid, do your homeword cause next time..it's dirty harry on your ass"..LOL

ok..seriously, i know it's a serious mather, but armed theachers?..my god, what a bunch of idiots. As Paul said..JUST GET SECURITY GUARDS...and please, no BS about no money and such. if we're talking Texas here, Even their Sport programme, specialy football in hightschool is worth MILLIONS...any ever seen their sport arenas out there?..

A simple 1 hrs ride in a F18 will pay for 1 security ghuard for a whole year out there...so stop flying for a month..and you'll equipe every school with top of the line security guard in ever school..it's that simple.

there is NO REASON to own a gun appart from been a Cop or some sort of security officer....i respect people who like to Hunt..but even that, i don't get, but that's another mather....i will approve hunting when animals are on equal ground....meaning they have gun mounted on their back with heat tracking..


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Arm the teachers?


This reminds me of the Archie Bunker solution to highjackers.


He suggested arming all the passengers. 


While I certainly recognize the merit to increased security as a short term solution to this problem, add my voice to the chorus. Trained security guards are a better plan than arming teachers.

An even better solution in my opinion would be a de-emphasis on guns as a part of being "an American" and MUCH tighter control on hand guns and assault weapons. Just my $0.02


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> So, hire security.
> What happens if the person walking into the school hell bent on destruction is the teacher? And he's armed? This is John Wayne Mission Accomplished macho silverback posturing right wing NRA-pandering bullshit.
> I especially love how this is the only part of the US constitution the gun nuts seem to care about (well, that and the whole 'freedom of speech' if, and only if, that parses out as 'teaching creationism in science class').
> 
> Of course, if it weren't so easy for homicidal loonies (like the nutter at Virginia Tech last year) to get guns in the first place, it might not be such a problem (which is isn't in countries with sane gun laws BTW).


If a teacher snaps you can't stop him from bringing his own gun. So that is not a good argument against it. However I agree with Paul. Teachers are hired to teach. They are not disciplinarians or police. I figure this is just a texas thing as they are known to love their guns. If thats what they want then fine. Just hope this attitude doesn't spread.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

My God, what are things coming to?

I hope that soon we get out of the era of idolizing the drug dealer and lose the 'gansta' mentality that permeates the media. Used to be kids idolized a policeman or a fireman. 

I have to agree with properly trained security or police if you really need someone armed in a school. I've been a shooter for almost (man I'm getting old) 40 years. I wouldn't trust myself in a shooting situation. IMO it takes very specialized, ongoing training to be able to handle the fear, the tension, the adrenaline, etc that would pound you. Just passing a course doesn't cut it.

In the US it isn't uncommon to see students entering the school through metal detectors with security guards checking their backpacks. Really, really sucks. Kids should be able to feel safe at school.


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

I remember reading about that earlier in the summer. In that particular situation, I support it 100%.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

I attended a University where we had a threat that someone was going to shoot up the place and for a week or two all incoming students were searched (very half-assedly I might add) and there were cops and cameras floating around. I didn't feel at all safer. Why? The cops were on the ground floor and the cafeteria, not in classrooms. Just as at Dawson, there were cops nearby but not close enough to save everybody. I felt that I should be allowed to carry for my own protection because, like it or not, police cannot be everywhere all the times.

Banning military style weapons or handguns will have no effect. Gangs will always find ways of bringing in firearms from the US, where most of the handguns used in Canadian gun crimes come from I might add. It is true that I can fire 20 rounds out of my handgun faster than I can fire 20 rounds out of my lever action rifle used for deer hunting or my pump action shotgun used for goose hunting, but I can still do so faster than any police response time. Remember Charles Witman? His school shooting was a result of well aimed accurate fire from hunting rifles. Even if we banned all guns, crazed individuals hell bent on mass murder can find equipment to make explosives.

What really bothers me is that banning guns isn't a solution to a problem and won't solve a god damn thing (except angering people like myself who enjoy using military style firearms for target shooting and hunting) because banning guns doesn't solve the fundamental problems. Individuals that go on shooting sprees don't do so because they have firearms. What people seem to be missing is the absence of intervention as it pertains to mental health and social issues. Schools are failing to provide safe environments for students with an inability to stop or prevent bullying.

All I know is that school shootings are a recent phenomena. We had virtually unrestricted access to firearms, including guns like AKs and AR15s, for decades and nobody used them to shoot up schools. School violence and public shooting sprees are fundamentally social and medical issues and I don't know how we go about preventing them. All I know is that in my parents day, kids used to beat each other up. Now, they're shooting and stabbing each other. I don't know what happened, but they had guns and weapons then and didn't used them but now they are.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

happydude said:


> I attended a University where we had a threat that someone was going to shoot up the place and for a week or two all incoming students were searched (very half-assedly I might add) and there were cops and cameras floating around. I didn't feel at all safer. Why? The cops were on the ground floor and the cafeteria, not in classrooms. Just as at Dawson, there were cops nearby but not close enough to save everybody. I felt that I should be allowed to carry for my own protection because, like it or not, police cannot be everywhere all the times.
> 
> Banning military style weapons or handguns will have no effect. Gangs will always find ways of bringing in firearms from the US, where most of the handguns used in Canadian gun crimes come from I might add. It is true that I can fire 20 rounds out of my handgun faster than I can fire 20 rounds out of my lever action rifle used for deer hunting or my pump action shotgun used for goose hunting, but I can still do so faster than any police response time. Remember Charles Witman? His school shooting was a result of well aimed accurate fire from hunting rifles. Even if we banned all guns, crazed individuals hell bent on mass murder can find equipment to make explosives.
> 
> ...


Well said. I never did but in many rural areas in my lifetime it was common practice for kids as young as 10-12 to bring .22 rifles to school and plink along the roads and fields on there way to and from school. This was happenning up until say roughly 30 years ago. Nobody ever went postal. 

"If a teacher snaps you can't stop him from bringing his own gun. So that is not a good argument against it." - again, exactly so.

By the way, did you know that it's effectively illegal to defend yourself in Canada? If my home is invaded, my sons' being stabbed and my wife and daughter raped, and I shoot the perpetrator(s), that *I* will be charged and have my guns seized? Please, tell me you don't believe this is ridiculous. I know no jury would convict but why have such stupidity even on the books?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

keto said:


> By the way, did you know that it's effectively illegal to defend yourself in Canada? If my home is invaded, my sons' being stabbed and my wife and daughter raped, and I shoot the perpetrator(s), that *I* will be charged and have my guns seized? Please, tell me you don't believe this is ridiculous. I know no jury would convict but why have such stupidity even on the books?


Dude....please, where on EARTH did you get this!..i come from a family of cop, me been almost the only man not been one. even have 3 woman in the force, i just called my stepbrother if this was true..and he laught his ass off. not saying you're making this up...but in Quebec, trust me, you can defend yourself. IF it's happening on your property..and your arm is legal..say a 12gauge or something like that. if you shoot a burglar with illegal 9mm for exemple..well, now you're in deep shit..NOT for shooting the burglar, but using a illegal firearm.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> By the way, did you know that it's effectively illegal to defend yourself in Canada? If my home is invaded, my sons' being stabbed and my wife and daughter raped, and I shoot the perpetrator(s), that *I* will be charged and have my guns seized? Please, tell me you don't believe this is ridiculous. I know no jury would convict but why have such stupidity even on the books?


There should definitely be accountability if you shoot someone, even if they're in your home, doing all the bad deeds. It makes it a last option, which is a good thing, and as you say no-one is going to convict anyone of murder if there are extenuating circumstances like the son stabbing/wife raping. Self-defence is always A-OK. Contrast that with the little Alberta of the south there where recently ******* A called 911 to report a robbery next door then cheerfully announced he was going to go shoot & kill the guys robbing the house next door, which he did, and got away with it, becoming a local hero in the process. At least in Canada he'd have to explain himself, and judge and maybe jury would decide if it was justified. Which of course it would be in that situation and there's no problem. I'm all for taking guns away from people who have been known to shoot other people until you know there was a decent reason for it. 

The law in Japan is very strict for cops using guns. They have them, but they must be accountable for their use and can (and do) land in jail for improper use. That's a great idea in my book. Same with tasers. There should be so much paperwork every time you discharge a firearm or a taser that it's not worth it unless it's the last recourse.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

al3d said:


> Dude....please, where on EARTH did you get this!..i come from a family of cop, me been almost the only man not been one. even have 3 woman in the force, i just called my stepbrother if this was true..and he laught his ass off. not saying you're making this up...but in Quebec, trust me, you can defend yourself. IF it's happening on your property..and your arm is legal..say a 12gauge or something like that. if you shoot a burglar with illegal 9mm for exemple..well, now you're in deep shit..NOT for shooting the burglar, but using a illegal firearm.


Oh puh-lease. You and your _facts_ getting in the way of a perfectly good PC-run-amok-oh-poor-me rationalisation story


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

About a year ago, there was a home invasion just outside of Calgary. The homeowner, in the process of *defending himself*(ie, there was no other extenuating circumstance), STABBED, the invader. He was charged and spent $$$$$$$$$$ with lawyers. He was jailed for quite a while, though ultimately freed and charges dropped. I couldn't afford that sort of interruption of my life and career. 

Again, there is much precedence for the example shown ie., other similar situations *involving firearms* in which the homeowner was charged and jailed - that's just the most recent one that popped into my mind. It's just not reasonable imo. The natural reaction in Canada is seize and charge first, look at evidence and clear name after. It's the culture we have wrought on ourselves.

Self defence is NOT "always A-OK", at least in the eyes of the law. 

Ahh but we have rather steered off topic I suppose.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

al3d said:


> Dude....please, where on EARTH did you get this!..i come from a family of cop, me been almost the only man not been one. even have 3 woman in the force, i just called my stepbrother if this was true..and he laught his ass off. not saying you're making this up...but in Quebec, trust me, you can defend yourself. IF it's happening on your property..and your arm is legal..say a 12gauge or something like that. if you shoot a burglar with illegal 9mm for exemple..well, now you're in deep shit..NOT for shooting the burglar, but using a illegal firearm.


Anywhere in Canada, you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was imminent danger of loss of life before you pulled the trigger. Which is fine and dandy but it's not ultimately the police's call to make, it's the crown prosecutor. So, seize and charge then let the chips fall.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> Anywhere in Canada, you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was imminent danger of loss of life before you pulled the trigger.


Man, I cannot tell you how strongly I support this.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Oh, I agree.


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

keto said:


> About a year ago, there was a home invasion just outside of Calgary. The homeowner, in the process of *defending himself*(ie, there was no other extenuating circumstance), STABBED, the invader. He was charged and spent $$$$$$$$$$ with lawyers. He was jailed for quite a while, though ultimately freed and charges dropped.


With all due respect Keto, if this is the same story I'm thinking of, the initial reports stated that it was a random break-in, but months later when the truth came out, it turned out that this was NOT a random break-in at all, both parties knew each other, had long-standing issues, and were well known by police. The 'invadee' wasn't as innocent as first reports stated. So this probably isn't the best example to use.

And while I'm here, I might as well state my opinion LOL Every time a 'gun thread' comes up, I usually do state my opinion. I hate guns. My perfect world does not have any guns in it AT ALL. Call me a dreamer but I wish I could start a whole new planet and inhabit it with peaceful people who love and appreciate their planet, the animals, and each other.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

What's with "home invasion" anyway? When did that seep into the collective consciousness? Too many people mispronounce burglary? 
(Although I must admit I had a neighbour from Belgium who knocked on my door one night visibly upset and announced <accent on> "_I 'ave just been buggered_"</accent off> -- yes someone broke in and stole his laptop; no-one was shot)


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Gilliangirl said:


> With all due respect Keto, if this is the same story I'm thinking of, the initial reports stated that it was a random break-in, but months later when the truth came out, it turned out that this was NOT a random break-in at all, both parties knew each other, had long-standing issues, and were well known by police. The 'invadee' wasn't as innocent as first reports stated. So this probably isn't the best example to use.


There you go again ruining things with _facts_ and _information_. Tsk tsk.


Gilliangirl said:


> And while I'm here, I might as well state my opinion LOL Every time a 'gun thread' comes up, I usually do state my opinion. I hate guns. My perfect world does not have any guns in it AT ALL. Call me a dreamer but I wish I could start a whole new planet and inhabit it with peaceful people who love and appreciate their planet, the animals, and each other.


Would sure be nice. But a bit of game theory unfortunately kills that idea -- I think John Maynard-Smith should be required reading in schools.
What we do need to do is stop rewarding the hawks for their behaviour the way we have been doing for the last 4 billion years.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

Sometimes best to have a bit of knowledge , please read and you decide....

http://www.canadacarry.org/subdream/index.php?categoryid=11


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I love guns, but if youre looking to get one for self defense, a trip to a shrink is a better idea. Nervous or paranoid people and guns do not mix. Guns require someone who is self aware of their mental state and has knowledge and respect of its lethal power. Its not uncommon to walk into stores in Switzerland and see people carrying their guns on their back. They dont have mass shootings like the US does. There are lots of reasons why they happen and its not the guns. Guns dont cause mass shootings, its psychos who get easy access to lethal weapons. Everyone loves to shift the blame in our society. If the guns are really to blame, let the psycho go and put the gun in jail. Im actually surprised that people even use guns to kill others. You are far better off getting drunk and using your car to kill someone, because in Canada, a drunk driver who kills someone with their car gets a slap on the wrist............


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Gilliangirl said:


> And while I'm here, I might as well state my opinion LOL Every time a 'gun thread' comes up, I usually do state my opinion. I hate guns. My perfect world does not have any guns in it AT ALL. Call me a dreamer but I wish I could start a whole new planet and inhabit it with peaceful people who love and appreciate their planet, the animals, and each other.


Throw in some free guns and I'll join your planet. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

happydude said:


> Throw in some free guns and I'll join your planet. :food-smiley-004:


And _that_ unfortunately is the evolutionarily stable strategy in John Maynard-Smith's hawk/dove game version of the Nash equilibrium. 

Beautifully f**king illustrated*


*Gratuitous Trainspotting quote

EDIT: Lookit, the hawk/dove thing has a wiki page


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Game theory? ESS? Sorry, I'm a reasonably well educated guy but yer over my head here. Guess I didn't take whatever subject covers it.

Here's a good read from yesterdays' paper. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/20/matt-gurney-no-one-needs-a-gun-and-no-one-needs-an-ipod.aspx


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

keto said:


> Game theory? ESS? Sorry, I'm a reasonably well educated guy but yer over my head here. Guess I didn't take whatever subject covers it.


I posted links
Here's a nice little app that demonstrates it: http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ryan/GameTheory.html
A nice backround: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/

It's important stuff to know. Explains a lot about society, sociology, behaviour. The Nash equilibrium is used in economics (AFAIK, not an economist)--they touch on it briefly in A Beautiful Mind where he says Adam Smith is incomplete. 
I'm a biologist, so my introduction was through John Maynard-Smith's application to evolutionary stable strategies. The google book link I added above is a great book. 
It's sort of a superset of the prisoner's dilema: a population of doves (peaceful, cooperative; Gillian's utopia) is ripe for invasion by an outsider (or a mutant) that defaults and acts as a hawk (aggressive, selfish; the one guy with the gun) as the hawk will have an advantage and do better than any of the doves (see Karl Rove, Dick Cheney). 
There's a balance though on the number of hawks and doves; if the population is filled with hawks (Bill O'Reilly's fantasy island) there is no cooperation, lots of aggression, and the population as a whole will do worse than a population of pure doves.
The ESS is the balance point.
Unfortunately, our societies all seem be set up to reward hawkish behaviour. Folks are basically decent (doves) but we still get led around by the Bushes and the Ayatollahs. It's all evolutionary biology (and economics!), and an understanding of it can be enlightening (so I think Maynard-Smith should be taught in school). 
Golding's Lord of the Flies.
Anyway, strayed from the subject ...

Interesting thing is that a few years ago there was a competition pitting different computer programs against each other in the prisoner's dilemma. tit-for-tat won hands down. (always cooperate, but always defect next time round against other who defect against you). A dove with big boots on (Bruce Lee).
In a second round, tit-for-two-tats won...I think of that one as Morihei Ueshiba...Ghandi up front, andwill be forgiving of the odd indiscretion, but will nail you to the wall ifyou establish that you're a meanie. 

Zero-sum vs. non-zero sum.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Interesting read and while I may be wrong but I believe the above is based on the assumption that guns = violence. What I'd like to propose is that human nature and social factors like substance abuse, economic and social inequality, competitive society are the problem and not the existance firearms themselves because they are inanimate objects. Based on Gillian's view of a utopian world, there is no reason to believe the influx of firearms would have any affect on the social stability of said world, unless of course her world is peaceful only due to an absence of weapons. Due to the fact that humans are born equipped to kill, I suspect Gillian's world is instead based on ideas of social equality, reciprocal altruism, and aholistic view of nature and society.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

All economic theory is based on assumptions. The old joke was that economists when faced with a problem can find a solution by assuming they already possess one..............


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

keto said:


> About a year ago, there was a home invasion just outside of Calgary. The homeowner, in the process of *defending himself*(ie, there was no other extenuating circumstance), STABBED, the invader. He was charged and spent $$$$$$$$$$ with lawyers. He was jailed for quite a while, though ultimately freed and charges dropped. I couldn't afford that sort of interruption of my life and career.


Well if the invader injures you this could potentially bring an interruption in your life or career. Not to mention the permanent interruption if he were to kill you.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Guns don't kill people, people from Texas with guns kill people: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQaQF39EbtehzlGgDJF34yEYviEwD93F8OD00

"A Texas jury acquitted a man accused of killing a boy who broke into his home looking for a snack — a case that sparked outrage in this border city, where many thought the man should not have even been charged."

That last bit really got me: "many thought the man should not have even been charged."

What ****ing planet do you have to live on where it's OK to just ****ing shoot someone no questions asked?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> What ****ing planet do you have to live on where it's OK to just ****ing shoot someone no questions asked?


Its a place called Earth. Every year we win the stoopidest entity in the Universe contest. I thought Terrakkia might beat us this year, but no chance........


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Its a place called Earth. Every year we win the stoopidest entity in the Universe contest. I thought Terrakkia might beat us this year, but no chance........


is that a star trek reference?I'm not sure if i follow you......


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

devnulljp said:


> Guns don't kill people, people from Texas with guns kill people: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gQaQF39EbtehzlGgDJF34yEYviEwD93F8OD00
> 
> "A Texas jury acquitted a man accused of killing a boy who broke into his home looking for a snack — a case that sparked outrage in this border city, where many thought the man should not have even been charged."
> 
> ...


Wat about the guy's house?? Did this fellow break in and announce that he was just there for a snack?? Oh - OK just go ahead but put the dishes in the sink when you leave. AFTER THE FACT he said he was just getting something to eat. AFTER he was caught. You blindly accept the word of a criminal?

So as a home owner and family man, if someone kicks my front door down I just have to sit back and them them do/have whatever they want?? Or do I ask them to have a seat and wait for 10 minutes while I call 911 and for the police to show up? I have no right to defend myself - but have to make sure that just in case they only want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
To put it politely - preposterous. If someone has broken into my house what is their intention?? So - what would you do?? Tell them to help themselves? Cower in a corner of a room in utter terror while the intruders ransack the house? Or perhaps their original intention was physical harm to the residents. Who is to know? If you can actually get a call to 911, how long would it take the police to get there?? In time to catch these people before harm is done??
You are bent to vilify every gun owner regardless - and most definitely you 
selectively collect and apply statistics and incidents and use that as PROOF the world would be better off your way. Yet you do not address the criminal side of the equation.
You can ban guns if you like but I want guarantees that I or my family will not become a victim of a violent crime and that police will be able to get to my residence within one minute to catch perpetrators. Impossible??!!! If you remove my right to self defence what is one to do?


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention - I do not own any firearms, bows, or arrows. I also have no intention whatsoever of ever owning any - even if the governments did liberalize ownership regulations.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

bscott said:


> I have no right to defend myself - but have to make sure that just in case they only want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?


And God help you if they suffer anaphalatyc shock as a result of a peanut allergy. They will sue your ass for every cent. Criminals are people to and need protection.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

bscott said:


> Oh yeah. I forgot to mention - I do not own any firearms, bows, or arrows. I also have no intention whatsoever of ever owning any - even if the governments did liberalize ownership regulations.



The only dangerous weapon I own is a Fender Telecaster.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g3s44FZlY


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

bscott said:


> Oh yeah. I forgot to mention - I do not own any firearms, bows, or arrows. I also have no intention whatsoever of ever owning any - even if the governments did liberalize ownership regulations.


So, I don't get the whole point of your post then. After all that, why don't you own all that Rambo gear? I don't get it...

My point in that article is that in parts of the US it seems you have the right to shoot and kill people over property, possessions, whatever, without question. People were annoyed there was even any _question_ as to this guy's right to do this. That's ****ed up. 

Did you ever hear of Yoshihiro Hattori? Kid went to a halloween party (in Baton Rouge, Louisiana). Knocked on the wrong door. Instead of "You have the wrong house son" the homeowner, one Rodney Peairs, shoots him with a 44 magnum. 
No worries say the Louisiana authorities. Second amendment and all that. Have a nice day.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Sorry I just couldn't resist. For the Home repair man in Texas!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

OK I'll try this again.. Friggin Monday! 









New nail gun, made by Dewalt. It can drive a 16D nail through a 2 X 4 at 200 yards. This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence. Just get the wife and kids to hold the fence boards in place while you sit back, relax with a cold drink, when they have the board in the right place just fire away. With the hundred round magazine, you can build the fence with a minimum of reloading. After a day of fence building with the new Dewalt Rapid fire nail gun, the wife will not ask you to fix or build anything else.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> OK I'll try this again.. Friggin Monday!


MOUAHAHAHA..man...that's so cool. my friend, contractor, will shit his pants when he sees this..LOL


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> OK I'll try this again.. Friggin Monday!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Life imitating...Duke Nukem 3D?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I think that if all of the checks and balances that society has put in place do not stop someone from trying to violate you then you're on you're own - the police will not be there in time, the security guard somewhere in the building will not be there in time, the judge will not be there in time. You either have to hope that it isn't going to happen or trust that you can either escape or defend yourself.

Here's a situation:

A loud noise wakes you up. Getting up to investigate you peek around a corner to see a guy with a gun in your kitchen. You say a silent prayer that your spouse and kids are away visiting relatives. You grab your cell off the nightstand and hide in your bedroom closet. You call 911 on your cell (quietly I hope) and tell the dispatcher that there's a guy with a gun in your kitchen.

What do you think happens next?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> I think that if all of the checks and balances that society has put in place do not stop someone from trying to violate you then you're on you're own - the police will not be there in time, the security guard somewhere in the building will not be there in time, the judge will not be there in time. You either have to hope that it isn't going to happen or trust that you can either escape or defend yourself.
> 
> Here's a situation:
> 
> ...


Well, from most scenarios I've read, you hope it's a person of color (How horrible is that, and not some punk white kid) So you'll get off. Sad fact of society these days, yes indeed there is no racial profiling. It makes me sick.

Someone gave me a really great tip the other day, say you're in your house and you hear a suspicious noise in the middle of the night. Keep your keys on your nightstand and hit the panic button. Not bad advice really.

AND we have guns bows ect in the house (DH is a hunter) BUT as in all responsible gun owners homes, they are locked up and the bad guy would shoot us down before we could ever get to them.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> What do you think happens next?


Your dad comes round the corner with that novelty cigar lighter in the shape of a gun--it's late so you forgot he had come to stay for the weekend--you leap out and smack him on the head with your telecaster. Dad is dazed, but his old army training takes over and he punches you in the mouth. You fall to your knees spitting blood and teeth.
Your guitar now has a crack in the heel joint. 
Your dad has a concussion. 
You have a hefty dental bill. 
Your whole family is now rightly pissed at you. 

All because you watched Last Man Standing one time too many? 

I hope it was a Korean reissue...


----------



## AGP1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Sort of relevant , but funny anyway


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

al3d said:


> Dude....please, where on EARTH did you get this!..i come from a family of cop, me been almost the only man not been one. even have 3 woman in the force, i just called my stepbrother if this was true..and he laught his ass off. not saying you're making this up...but in Quebec, trust me, you can defend yourself. IF it's happening on your property..and your arm is legal..say a 12gauge or something like that. if you shoot a burglar with illegal 9mm for exemple..well, now you're in deep shit..NOT for shooting the burglar, but using a illegal firearm.


In Canada you can't defend yourself unless you fear your life is in immediate danger.
And even if it is in danger you will be charged and stand trial if you seriously harm or kill someone (even in your own house)
Example:
About 3 weeks ago a man was sitting at his kitchen table when 4 armed intruders broke into his house.
He got beaten up pretty badly before he was able to get to his firearm.
He subsequently shot one of the intruders.
When the police arrived HE (the home's resident) was arrested and charged with several offences including manslaughter.
The court case is still pending.
This happened in Welland Ontario Canada.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Perkinsfan said:


> In Canada you can't defend yourself unless you fear your life is in immediate danger.
> And even if it is in danger you will be charged and stand trial if you seriously harm or kill someone (even in your own house)
> Example:
> About 3 weeks ago a man was sitting at his kitchen table when 4 armed intruders broke into his house.
> ...


It might be a case to case thing. it happened in my own family. my cousin, at the time was 19, was in his hunting camp, while his dad was out setting traps. 3 man, to be after identified as Bikers of a certain gang, came storming the camp, he was just putting back togheter his dad's 9mm, took aim and shot 2 of the 3 in the knees, and the other one ran... my cousin went to trial, but not as an accused, but as as witness in the 3 man's trial, for attempted murder on a police officer. His dad, my uncle, was, retired now, a Sergeant in the local PD.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Perkinsfan said:


> In Canada you can't defend yourself unless you fear your life is in immediate danger.
> And even if it is in danger you will be charged and stand trial if you seriously harm or kill someone (even in your own house)
> Example:
> About 3 weeks ago a man was sitting at his kitchen table when 4 armed intruders broke into his house.
> ...


I don't see a problem with that. But then you probably knew that...
Killing people should not be done lightly. There should be consequences. it should be a choice between being inconvenienced by a court case and being forced to justify your actions vs. being harmed or killed yourself. Then you can be sure your actions were justified. If it's not worth the court case, it's not worth taking someone else's life.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> I think that if all of the checks and balances that society has put in place do not stop someone from trying to violate you then you're on you're own - the police will not be there in time, the security guard somewhere in the building will not be there in time, the judge will not be there in time. You either have to hope that it isn't going to happen or trust that you can either escape or defend yourself.
> 
> Here's a situation:
> 
> ...


OK - what happens is that the police come and cordon and tape off your house, call in a hostage negotiator and the SWAT Team and get all your neighbours outside the cordon.

Everybody does exactly what they were supposed to do and can take pride in that - except you - because you're dead.


----------

