PDA

View Full Version : A slight "Flaw" in the legal system.


Surgeon General
29th October 2001, 09:30 PM
I am so p****d at my country's legal system right now that I can hardly think straigth. A couple of months ago I was awaken at about 1:30 am to the sound of a person screaming for help in my back yard. I could hear the sound of rustling leaves and my dog's low growl. I grabed the .45 that I keep locked in a gun safe attached to my bed. I hit the flood lights and took a peek out the kitchen window. My dog, an akita (big big doggy) had this dude on the ground and was mauling him. I went outside with my weapon drawn and yelled for stella to come to me. She obeyed at once and came to my side. A neighbor came out onto his deck to see what was going on and I asked him to call the police. So I am standing there holding my weapon on this guy for the 9 minutes it takes the sheriff to get to my house. He is whining the entire time about his leg and shoulder.The police came and after questioning me and my neighbor they hauled this guy off to the hospital and then to jail I suppose.

So all is well right? That's what I thought untill got a letter from this guys lawyer, "a request" for compensation for "injurys incured from my cannine". As he was climbing over my fence he cut his leg up pretty deep with the decorative tops of the iron fence and stella chewed the hell out of his shoulder. I could not belive it at first. This guy had to jump over my 7 foot high back yard fence which has a "Beware of dog" sign posted every 6 feet for crying out loud!!

I called my insurance company (God bless StateFarm) and they said that they would have someone represent me since the it falls under my homeownes policy.The Guy from StateFarm said that this does happen from time to time and that it's a "flaw" in our legal system.

I am still in shock that someone could get hurt in the process of comiting a crime (sorry, Aleged crime since he did not get a chance to commit more than tresspassing) and then seek compensation. That piece of s*** is lucky that my dog stoped him. I have a home alarm that goes off when doors are open or windows vibrate too much, If that fool had made it in my house I would have had NO problem what so ever placing 2 rounds in his dead center mass.

MrP
29th October 2001, 09:34 PM
welcome to comensation culture mate.

and you wunder why your poll tax/rates/insurance/income tax etc etc etc goes up year on year. Thank th ambulance chasers, and those too lazy to work for a living.

its about to get very expensive out there people

toodles :xsofa:

NorthernYankee
29th October 2001, 09:35 PM
I agree it really sucks when the criminals abuse the legal system and make it hard on the law abiding people.

--NY

RaNGeR.GaV
29th October 2001, 10:02 PM
I hope things work out in your favour Surg!!!!

That kinda stuff we're always hearing about over hear in NZ .... and its now starting to happen here on the odd occasion. I hope it doesn't take off like it has in the US.
Also, nice handling of the situation ... sounds like you got a well-screwed-on head and a well trained dog. Plenty of peeps could learn form you.
That guy should feel lucky you're not sueing him for "Causing emotional distress to my dog by trying to choke him by 'mouth-full-of-shoulder' technique" :)
or it coulda turned out like "But sheriff ... I had to shoot him!! He was trying to choke my dog by stuffing his whole shoulder in its mouth!!!!" :)

Good luck man!

Mad Bad John
29th October 2001, 11:19 PM
Hey S.G. - Maybe you should feed your Doggie a bit more often !:xtsk:

The Therion
29th October 2001, 11:34 PM
simply ridiculous
whats the purpose of having the damn dog signs for anyway!
and thats for regular visitors/traspassers
this guy probably had worse intentions
but will get treated better

...woof...

Surgeon General
30th October 2001, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by RaNGeR.GaV


"But sheriff ... I had to shoot him!! He was trying to choke my dog by stuffing his whole shoulder in its mouth!!!!" :)

Good luck man!

LOL, Wish I had thought of that!! Well This afternoon at 3pm I got a call from the StateFarm Lawyer that's going to handle this. Get this, it gets even better. The lawyer told me that if I did not want to have to go to court, they could setle with the guy. Man I don't know what came over me, I was yelling at this guy on the phone "Hell NO !!!!" The I said I was sorry for yelling. I informed him that I had somewhere around 45 days of leave time and will spend every one of thoes days in court if I have to to make sure this guy does not get a cent !!! The lawer then told me that most people don't bother with it and just setle. I don't give a damm what it cost, this guy gets no free ride here.
Me thinks I might have to sell my home and move to another state soon. Any one here from Texas? I was told I could pretty much shoot someone for looking at me funny in Texas:p

Baptizer
30th October 2001, 11:39 AM
Jeez...good luck with this situation.......
I think your dog deserves a big red steak too!

Berkswolf
30th October 2001, 07:28 PM
This sort of thing has always been a source of amazement and amusement to us here in the UK. I have to say though that things are starting to head that way over here too.

I am fascinated, and I have to say somewhat shocked at the matter of fact way you talk about grabbing the .45 SurgeonG. While I fully understand it is part and parcel of the American way of life, and is in fact part of the constitution I think? It is totaly alien to us here in the UK.

There is a famous case which is in fact just up for appeal of a farmer who shot, and in fact killed, a burgler in his house. It was something like the 15th time he had been burgled in a short period of time!! We are talking about a middle aged man living on his own out in the country who was obviously very afraid here.

He is now serving a very long prison sentence, something that the majority of the public in the UK were most annoyed about!!

NorthernYankee
30th October 2001, 07:37 PM
Yeah Texas is definately the state for all the gun lovers. I am happy to be out of Cali now SG they are way too liberal out there, it is to the point where the criminal and Illegal Aliens get treated better then the Cali citizens. Stick to your guns SG don't let that sucker get a single red cent.

--NY

The Therion
30th October 2001, 08:36 PM
how can you be free if you need a gun for protection ?

Snufkin
30th October 2001, 09:53 PM
SG Im just glad that your dog got to him before you and your gun did, otherwise it would probably have been worse than compensation! Stick to your guns mate...... ooops bad pun.....

speculative
31st October 2001, 08:27 AM
[sarcastic mode on]
I know what you need, Surgeon!! You need a EULA (End-User License Agreement) for your yard/home!!

For example:

"By entering this property you automatically agree to the following:

1. The dog may eat you.
2. I have an itchy trigger finger
3. You forgo the legal right to sue me for any reason at any time."

If you look at software EULA's, then gosh, software EULA's are a lot more stringent than trespassing/burglaring law!

EULA's are so in-your-face that I personally feel they're getting out of control. Yesterday, I downloaded and used IBM's "Features Tool" and had to go through the same EULA twice to use it. The second time it basically said something to the effect of 'even if you've unknowingly installed this software as part of another package or if it's been pre-installed, you automatically agree to this EULA.' So, pretty soon it's going to be like this for Microsoft's next EULA:

"You were born, therefore you automatically accept our EULA legally. There's no need to click OK, because you've already legally clicked okay just by waking up this morning!!" :rolleyes:[/sarcastic mode off]

Surgeon, I applaud your determination!! Just post the above EULA on your fence next to teh "Beware of Dog" sign and hopefully that will clear things up if there's a next time! I don't feel sorry one bit for that guy - it was his decision to climb the fence; he did it of his own free will and now he needs to face the consequences of his actions!!

-speculative

speculative
31st October 2001, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by The Therion
how can you be free if you need a gun for protection ?

:confused: Hmm... what do you mean Therion?

I would say the US has been free (to a vast extent) for the past 200 years, yet we've had to raise arms against the foes of our freedom many times... Or, are you talking about vigilance being the cost of freedom, and that being a kind of "false freedom" since in a truly free society vigilance would be unnecessary?

-spec

Gibbon
31st October 2001, 09:45 AM
Next time "pop a cap in his ass" :xbrengun:

Seriously tho that is pretty sucky :(

Gibbon

NorthernYankee
31st October 2001, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Gibbon
Next time "pop a cap in his ass" :xbrengun:

Seriously tho that is pretty sucky :(

Gibbon

ROTFLAMO

Surgeon General
31st October 2001, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Berkswolf

I am fascinated, and I have to say somewhat shocked at the matter of fact way you talk about grabbing the .45 SurgeonG. While I fully understand it is part and parcel of the American way of life, and is in fact part of the constitution I think?



I don't want you to think I am some sort of crazed nut Berks, i must explain that I am serving in U.S. Navy. I worked on a ship where we boarded suspected sanctions violaters in the persian gulf, then was stationed at the S.E.R.E. training facility as an instructor. I have had the chance to handle weapons a lot, especially with some training I did with the marines back when I was a CB. Guns , all weapons in fact are nothing more than tools to do a job. They have one purpose and one purpose only and that's to kill people. Yes many use them to hunt for food, target practice, etc.. but when it comes down to it they are a tool.
I may sound cold or even evil to some people but the truth as I see it is that some people just need to die. If someone comes into my house to do God knows what it is my right to defend myself.
you are right about my constitutional right to bear arms, it's something that a lot of us Americans take very seriously. Look at our poor brothers in Canada, a while back they banned just about all guns to civilians and made it very hard to own one and whats the result? only the criminals and police have guns now.
There was a story in the paper here a while back about a navy guy that shot an intruder in the chest with two rounds from a 9mm handgun. While he was on trial, the prosecution was arguing that since he was a military member he had been trained to "shoot to kill", and as the article says he replied by saying, with a very calm look on his face "No sir, I have not been trained to kill, I have been trainde to shoot center mass" .............He was cleared of any wrong doing.
:)

Berkswolf
31st October 2001, 11:35 PM
Surgeon, I wasn't implying any critisism, just pointing out the differances in the ways of life. Many brits would argue that the US way is better, and I am sure many US citizens would say the same about UK way of things.

BTW the case I mentioned. On appeal the sentance was reduced from life imprisonment to 5 years. Many in the UK feel that far from receiving any form of imprisonment, he should have received a commendation.

TheGreystar
1st November 2001, 01:28 PM
What really sucks is that it had to be on medical grounds - "mental stress" to get his sentence reduced to manslaughter.

The mind boggles.

Some Oik breaks into your home and starts nicking your stuff, you challenge him and he starts comming up the stairs, so you put a shotgun round in him. Who has a problem with that??

What got him in deep water was he had been burgled before, so having admitted having a loaded shotgun to hand, he "premeditated" this criminals death.

Utter, utter madness.

G*

Surgeon General
1st November 2001, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by TheGreystar
What really sucks is that it had to be on medical grounds - "mental stress" to get his sentence reduced to manslaughter.

The mind boggles.

Some Oik breaks into your home and starts nicking your stuff, you challenge him and he starts comming up the stairs, so you put a shotgun round in him. Who has a problem with that??

What got him in deep water was he had been burgled before, so having admitted having a loaded shotgun to hand, he "premeditated" this criminals death.

Utter, utter madness.

G*
Do I understand this correctly? Are you not allowed to have a loaded firearm in your home? So like me for example, The only weapon I keep loaded is the one by my bed. I intend on using it to defend myself if the need arises. Is that premeditation?



There is nothing more useless than an empty weapon.

JohnyX
1st November 2001, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Surgeon General

There is nothing more useless than an empty weapon.

How about a judge with an empty head?

Surgeon General
1st November 2001, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by JohnyX


How about a judge with an empty head?

O.K. Johny, you got me :) I stand corrected. I should have said There are FEW thing more useless than an empty gun.:D

Sech
1st November 2001, 05:37 PM
Texan..born and bred......According to 90% of the world population..Texans still ride horses....carry holster with 6 shooters in em..and **** in a outhouse...althought in some places that wouldnt be far from the true....for the most part Texas does have similiar laws as most states...However the inforcing of those laws can be translated diffrently from law authorities.....Sometimes the law most choose if taking away a rednecks gun off his gun rack in the back window of his truck would be worth the fight that would ensue.....Now in Texas you shoulda shot him in your yard.....drug his dead ass back into your house and when the law arrived...say " But officer I told him I would shoot if he came into my house"......of course the officer woulda wanted to know why you pumped in 12 bullets...meaning you emptied your clip 2 times and had to reload....


Sech....

Berkswolf
1st November 2001, 06:51 PM
"Do I understand this correctly? Are you not allowed to have a loaded firearm in your home? So like me for example, The only weapon I keep loaded is the one by my bed. I intend on using it to defend myself if the need arises. Is that premeditation?

This was my whole point Surgeon, the differances between our countries on firearms. Its not only a loaded firearm, its ANY firearm, loaded or not thats not allowed. You are allowed to keep certain types of firearm if you have a licence for it. Sporting guns for example. To get the said licence is by no means easy.

Apparently if that gun is loaded then it constitutes premeditation on the part of the person trying to protect himself and his home if he then uses it. A lot of us brits can't really understand it either mate.

Surgeon General
1st November 2001, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Berkswolf
[B
This was my whole point Surgeon, the differances between our countries on firearms. Its not only a loaded firearm, its ANY firearm, loaded or not thats not allowed. You are allowed to keep certain types of firearm if you have a licence for it. Sporting guns for example. To get the said licence is by no means easy.

.

Man, :eek: Call me stupid, dumb whatever you like but I NEVER imagined that it was like that for you guys. It's hard for me to even try to imagine what it would be like. Seriously, I try to imagine it but my mind just tosses it out as if to say, "no way that could ever be"

Player0
1st November 2001, 09:38 PM
Gah...things like this happen REGULARLY in the US, and it makes me sick. Even if things passively happen, like a theif breaks in to your house, and in the dark trips over something and breaks his leg. Then he sues the owner of the house, and the worst part...WINS! This is even more common for businesses.

What the hell happened in our society to allow such things to happen. I dont actually own a gun because I know I would use it. If I caught some mother sneaking in to my house, the least I would do is beat the living **** out of him. If I saw him carrying a gun, I'd blow his head off without a second thought. I know this person has no respect for me or the law, and would likely kill me an instant. So I have no moral issues with taking a lowlife out of this world.

Unfortunately, Id get sued, or go to jail for a few years of a$$ poundings. Why? Defending my house and family from the scum of the earth. I know this isnt really the time for anti-american sentiment, but seriously, things like this just make me ill. And this is a VERY common occurance.

We have innocent people sitting in jail right now, while thiefs and rapists and murderers are roaming the streets free and taking money from the government and insurance companies, because they had some smart lawyers. Sometimes I wonder who the stupid ones really are.

Gibbon
1st November 2001, 09:58 PM
I dont actually own a gun because I know I would use it. If I caught some mother sneaking in to my house, the least I would do is beat the living **** out of him. If I saw him carrying a gun, I'd blow his head off without a second thought. I know this person has no respect for me or the law, and would likely kill me an instant. So I have no moral issues with taking a lowlife out of this world.

I know exactly what you mean Player0, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do the same, however IMHO this is why we need tighter gun laws not looser like the US... if nobody had guns we could all just rely on something heavy to whack them with.... like the fridge :D

Gibbon

RaNGeR.GaV
2nd November 2001, 12:06 AM
Yeah its the same here in New Zealand as it is in the UK.
Guns have to be locked away (with bolt and ammo seperated from them). You could get done for having a loaded gun in the house .... and thats even BEFORE you get a chance to use it!!!.
And thats just sporting guns I'm talking about! Man try to get a pistol here? You need to shoot at a range for 6 months before you can even get a license; then once u eventually get a pistol, you have to have a safe of 6mm steel, or a steel and concrete gun room to keep them in (as well as shooting at a range once a month to keep your license).

Theres no "legal" chance of having a 'nightstand' gun in this country for a loooooong while yet!
(Which is worrying because "home-invasions" are becoming more and more common place here. Thats where a group of thugs bust into your house at night, tie u up (after softening you up a bit with a baseball bat of course), and rob you blind! And its now also more common that they have at least one gun between them as well ..... )

The Therion
2nd November 2001, 12:40 AM
difficult over here too ,to get a gun

speculative,i was reffering to the second thing you mentioned

Surgeon General
2nd November 2001, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Gibbon


IMHO this is why we need tighter gun laws not looser like the US... if nobody had guns we could all just rely on something heavy to whack them with.... like the fridge :D

Gibbon

The only problem with this is that the criminal, low-life, good for nothing, motherless pieces of $*** that break into your house don't give a flying fandango about laws. Tighter gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, the criminals still keep theres.
Edit done by Pistol
sorry Surgeon General but had to make a few adjustments on your post

Sech
2nd November 2001, 02:45 AM
uhmmm...like John Wayne said...."they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold listless dead body.......(not sure if john wayne really said that...but dagnabbit..he should have)....



Sech...

speculative
2nd November 2001, 07:55 AM
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh! :mad:

There, now that I have that off my chest...

"Guns don't kill people - bad drivers kill people!!"

How easy is it to get a driver's license in the UK chaps???? It's pretty easy over here, I'll say that. Do you know how many more people get killed by drunk drivers, tired drivers, or just by accident on the roadways?? A big fat whole heaping gob more than even get shot, let alone killed, by guns... Let we let people get away with driving on our roads, I mean, it's outrageous! We should immediately ban all cars and make it outrageously difficult to get a license. Also, we should make it so that you have to drive an obstacle course at least once a month to keep your license. And, you have to keep your car's body and its engine in separate locations at all times (except when driving of course).

from http://www.alfnra.org/carsvsguns.htm
But gun accidents in recent years have killed fewer children under 15 than bicycles. In 1997, two hundred kids were killed by bike accidents compared to a hundred and forty-two by firearms accidents. But two-thousand, nine hundred children under fifteen
died in automobile accidents.

from http://www.westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol3.html

They want gun owners to register their guns the way people register cars, and they want gun owners to have licenses like they do for cars. There are a few problems with that. First, cars are not guns. Cars are more dangerous than guns. More people are killed in car accidents every year than with guns. There are 96,000 gun injuries per year, and 32,000 of those are fatal. There are 3,000,000 injuries and 41,000 deaths per year from car accidents. There are 60 million gun owners who own 230,000,000 guns in this country, and there are 210,000,000 registered vehicles. Those rates come out to: .00013 gun deaths per gun vs. .00019 car deaths per car.


(For further reading on why cars should be banned, check out the "volvo drivers" thread in the flame forum? ;) )

I hope this analogy goes a long way in pointing out how ridiculous gun laws are... The statistics speak for themselves. If the world is really so "concerned" that having guns around is dangerous, then they have no recourse but to ban automobiles!!

-speculative

speculative
2nd November 2001, 08:40 AM
from: http://www.westnet.com/~levins/guncontrol3.html


They say we need gun control.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


Those are some pretty humbling statistics to say the least!!

-speculative

dicki
2nd November 2001, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by TheGreystar

Some Oik breaks into your home and starts nicking your stuff, you challenge him and he starts comming up the stairs, so you put a shotgun round in him. Who has a problem with that??

G*

i thought the problem was that the robber was running away and got shot in the back? as i understood it the guy would have been let off if he was actually physically threatened (ie. by the guy coming towards him) but instead he had scared them off and still shot them as they were running away which seems a little harsh to me...

i have no trouble with defending yourself and property in just about anyway but it should be reasonable force... if someone attacks me with a knife or gun then it's reasonable for me to kill them, if i surprise someone in my house and they run for it then they arn't treatening me so i'd go back to bed.

dicki

Pistol
2nd November 2001, 04:47 PM
I think some of us should use more of these when typeing certain words please *********

Player0
2nd November 2001, 05:37 PM
The problem is...if the theif has a weapon...he is a lot less likely to run away...here in the US anyway. Some guy breaking in to your house to steal a teevee is likely gonna run away.

Some guy who has been planning the robbery for a week, and carrying a gun, well he is going to be less likely to bolt. Some of these guys are professionals, some of them are nuts.

Shooting someone in the back as they run out of the house is not always a clear cut answer either. What if he is going for backup? What if he is going to come back again later? Are you going to sleep well at night wondering if this guy is watching and waiting, waiting for a moment to try again, maybe when your wife or kids are home alone? Usually robberies arent just random. You have somehow become a target. And this doesnt necessarily change just because you run a guy off. It probably makes things worse in a lot of cases, cause now you hurt this guys pride.

Now you dont have to necessarily kill the guy, but Id sure as hell try to stop him. Easier to shoot the back than the legs though.

I dunno. Tough subject :)

The Therion
2nd November 2001, 09:51 PM
More people are killed in car accidents every year than with guns

This is supposed to be significant ? Every person of every family that has a car,uses it every day of every year ! You dont have to use your gun every day ! :rolleyes:
As much as the numbers can be impressive,its a bad analogy,sorry.




And if the thief is running away from your house you dont shoot him in the back,you call the police.You shoot him in the back and you'll have quite some trouble trying to proove u were in self defence!

Rids
2nd November 2001, 10:52 PM
He might have been walking backwards :)

The Therion
2nd November 2001, 11:32 PM
uhhmm..if he was "running" away walking backwards,then he'd be facing you so its not a shot in the back ;)

speculative
3rd November 2001, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by The Therion
This is supposed to be significant ? Every person of every family that has a car,uses it every day of every year ! You dont have to use your gun every day ! :rolleyes:
As much as the numbers can be impressive,its a bad analogy,sorry.

I can't say that you're wrong, Therion, because you've just proved my point: Many want to take away people's right to own/use firearms because it's easy for them. Cars are more dangerous, but it wouldn't be "easy" for most people to do without their cars. I admit that it's pretty easy for the general majority of people to do without their guns though!! It's not like you have to fire off a few rounds before leaving the house every morning in order to feel like your life is complete or anything or get your business done! But, in the long run, this kind of thinking can have serious negative side-effects...

I wasn't pointing out the thoughts in this thread actually either; just posting some hopefully thought-provoking material...

-speculative

prokaryote
3rd November 2001, 10:20 AM
Okay, I'm not going to argue for or against gun control, just going to bring out some important points (at least to me).

1). I agree with The Therion, can't compare guns with cars. Don't need a gun to function in our society, but nearly need a car (here in America, no dependable mass transit systems). Also, if you insist, then compare number of deaths per hour of use. Another interesting statistic would be to compare deaths involved per hour of use when alcohol was involved as well. (Maybe that's the real issue here). Or how about number of deaths when a car and/or a gun were involved in a crime. Really the point here is that the context has to be the same in order to derive any real meaning from the "numbers" one way or the other.

2). The statistics for gun control countries provided are like comparing apples to oranges. All of these countries were essentially dictatorships, not representative republics with no real vested interest in what the public wants. Don't know of many legitimate democracies that have voted in a dictatorship or totalitarian government (aside from France, but they ended up booting out the communists via an election without resorting to shooting everyone). Don't know how many real democracies have failed either and gone to some form of totalitarian rule because it's citizens weren't armed (can think of one where it's citzens were armed and wound up a totalitarian state anyway, Afghanistan), would be an interesting stat though. Also, what do the citizens of nearly everyother industrialized democratic like country think about the possibility of their government coming in and abusing them to no end?

3). Why is it that more people get worked up about gun control in this country than actually get off of their butts and vote? That would seem to be a much larger travesty. If someone can't be bothered with THE essential part of this government that we have, then why do they care about a fraction of the entire package?

4). After more pondering, I think that in the final analysis, it's not about taking away rights, defending oneself, preventing big brother from taking over, pursuit of happiness, etc., but really about trust. The question is, do we trust each other as citizens of this country? If not, then it must be a very scary place indeed, what with people owning cars, drinking alcohol, flying planes, working for the government, working at biotech labs, having access to nukes or other heavy armaments, and any other thousands of situations encountered in everyday life.

The Therion
3rd November 2001, 02:17 PM
I think i know what you mean spec but we just cant say cars are more dangerous than guns by just comparing the numbers of cars and guns that are circulating.As procaryote also pointed out,its comparing different things.

I mean, every time a gun is used ,somebody gets killed or heavily injured.
But can we say,every time a car is used somebody gets injured or killed?
Ofcourse not.We would have millions of deaths every year if that really happened!

speculative
3rd November 2001, 11:26 PM
Therion; I'm glad you're calling me on the car analogy, you're making me think, which makes my argument better!! (Hopefully... :D )

Anyways, here's revision #3, and it actually fits with Prokaryote's response to my car analogy as well:

This rethinking has made me realize I'm going about my hypothesis/argument/idea exactly backwards... It isn't the risk, but the reward!! And this may be why some are so adamantly for or against gun control!! Okay, first things first...

a. What is the reward of using a car? Well, we get it every day. Without cars, most of us couldn't get to work, and without a paycheck we couldn't live. A pretty big reward I would say!! So, we're willing to put up with a lot to be able to drive that car. We're willing to put up with speed limits and crazy drivers and congested traffic, high insurance costs and maintenance costs and a currently very high gas cost, and even the chance we may be killed! You see, the rewards are so high that we're willing to take these "risks" and pay these "costs." As for what you mentioned, Prokaryote, we're willing to let those people do those things because we can't do them ourselves, and it raises our quality of living so much that it's "worth" the risk. This doesn't necessarily prove that we trust them, though, although that indeed can be argued.

b. What is the cost of using a gun in self defense? Someone could die/will die. What is the benefit of using a gun in self defense? Someone's life could be/will be saved. So, the risk of using a gun is that someone will die. Alternately, the risk of not using a gun is that someone will die.

c. Therefore: The pro-gun advocates see gun control as adding the risk of being defenseless to their lives. The anti-gun advocates see gun control as taking away the risk of being defenseless from their lives.

d. Unfortunately, now that I look at it that way I can make neither heads nor tails of the thing. It's like holding a rattlesnake in one hand and a badger in the other. You could let the badger eat the snake, but then where would you be when it's just you and the badger?? So instead, it's a standoff...

:confused:

-speculative

Sech
3rd November 2001, 11:46 PM
Well whichever way you look at it...our Forefathers (in th good ole USA anyway) had insight to include the right to bear arms in the constitution. We as humans would like to imagine a world where people wouldnt have to worry about guns...crime...terrorism....or whatever fears one has...However folks we dont live in such a world. Gun laws do work in one regard...they do strive to make people have proper licenses and registrations for such weapons. However the last time I looked...burglars...theives...rapist...ect..ect... are not the types of people that pay much attention to the laws that pertain to firearms....Most gun laws do one thing and thats to police and inforce policies on normal law abiding citizens.....The laws do little or nothing in controlling crime.....IMHO of course...


Sech....

The Therion
4th November 2001, 12:00 AM
spec, i should stop making you think that much :D :p :p :D

Squeaky
4th November 2001, 12:32 PM
some hope Therion :D

I'm not one for serious debate (i know...you've noticed)
im personally anti-gun - i think making them difficult to get hold of legally must also reduce the risk of them being used in crime - or perhaps its easier to state that if they are available to the public then they are more readily available to a criminal element - perhaps to the extent of causing a mini arms race. If your armed, they need to be better armed !!

I know 'they' will always find a way, an alternative, but lets not make it easy for them - at the end of the day they will always do more harm with whatever they arm themselves with than you or I.

There was a post earlier listing statistics - millions of deaths because of gun law. I did not realise the gun was to be used for defence against your own government, the conclusion the stats would point to.

Somebody over here wanted to license paintball guns at one point also..and i own one, and at first thought it ridiculous, but thinking logically - turn up the velocity on a new marker - give it a heavier projectile and bobs ur uncle...especially as the price of acquiring them falls!
It will never be a real issue of course...if a serious criminal needs to arm themselves they had best be sure they can compete with the law enforcement, who would be armed with the real thing should anyone wielding something gun-like no matter how poor a substitute appeared outdoors. The knife can do more damage, is more readily available, and not quite as likely to attract the ultimate response from the law.

Now how you police those is a question!

The Therion
4th November 2001, 08:37 PM
squeaky my friend....you failed us...

...that was a really serious post ! <img src=http://homepages.pathfinder.gr/Defiant/sm/eek1.gif>

:D

and with good points too ;)

JohnyX
5th November 2001, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by The Therion
I think i know what you mean spec but we just cant say cars are more dangerous than guns by just comparing the numbers of cars and guns that are circulating.As procaryote also pointed out,its comparing different things.

I mean, every time a gun is used ,somebody gets killed or heavily injured.
But can we say,every time a car is used somebody gets injured or killed?
Ofcourse not.We would have millions of deaths every year if that really happened!

Who are the police shooting when they go down to the range to practice?

The Therion
6th November 2001, 10:49 AM
lol

JohnyX
6th November 2001, 09:03 PM
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, an FBI division that conducts instant checks for firearms sales and concealed-weapons permits, reports that it conducted 937,042 checks in the month after the attacks up 21 percent from the same period last year.

JohnyX
6th November 2001, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Squeaky


There was a post earlier listing statistics - millions of deaths because of gun law. I did not realise the gun was to be used for defence against your own government, the conclusion the stats would point to.



"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith,1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." THOMAS JEFFERSON Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, June 1776. 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

jema
22nd December 2001, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Berkswolf
This sort of thing has always been a source of amazement and amusement to us here in the UK. I have to say though that things are starting to head that way over here too.

I am fascinated, and I have to say somewhat shocked at the matter of fact way you talk about grabbing the .45 SurgeonG. While I fully understand it is part and parcel of the American way of life, and is in fact part of the constitution I think? It is totaly alien to us here in the UK.

There is a famous case which is in fact just up for appeal of a farmer who shot, and in fact killed, a burgler in his house. It was something like the 15th time he had been burgled in a short period of time!! We are talking about a middle aged man living on his own out in the country who was obviously very afraid here.

He is now serving a very long prison sentence, something that the majority of the public in the UK were most annoyed about!!

The key point as I recall about this case, is that this lawyers (and there were links to the far right in this case) tried to make a vigilante type case out of it, trying to say that we was perfectly right to shoot them in the back etc. The facts of this case was that if the farmer was in sound mind, then the way it went down was actually murder :(
The case is now going to appeal on the far more convincing grounds that the guy in question was suffering from diminished responsibility. I have little doubt that on this defense he will effectively get off.

jema

RanGer498
24th December 2001, 09:40 PM
did you press charges on him also ...trespassing .theft ...so on if not do so!

Surgeon General
25th December 2001, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by RanGer498
did you press charges on him also ...trespassing .theft ...so on if not do so!

ooooooooooooooooo yeahhhhhhhhh :D