If someone breaks into your house, how will you shoot them without a gun?
Good ol' USA
- Thread starter RockerGuy
- Start date
why in the world did the police bother knocking?!?! why didn't they just storm into the apartment in the first place?!
2 counter points:
1) Even if crime is on the decline, that doesn't mean that it doesn't still exist.
2) The socio-economic situation in the USA is remarkably different than Canada. There is much more social support here, so it is not an apples to apples comparison. Are the States any safer with their relatively lax gun laws? One could argue that they may be less safe without them.
Last edited:
Or one could argue that gun laws don't impact crime.
Crime is a socio-economic issue. People don't resort to crime because their state/country has one kind of gun law over another. That's retarded thinking that both conservatives and liberals are guilty of.
Guns are a matter of freedom. You either have it, or you don't. We should all have the fundamental freedom to arm and protect ourselves just like our police and public figures do. In addition to that, guns have perfectly legitimate sporting, hunting, and wilderness protection uses. It's a no brainer- people who support stringent gun control and the banning of firearms are deluded.
Crime is a socio-economic issue. People don't resort to crime because their state/country has one kind of gun law over another. That's retarded thinking that both conservatives and liberals are guilty of.
Guns are a matter of freedom. You either have it, or you don't. We should all have the fundamental freedom to arm and protect ourselves just like our police and public figures do. In addition to that, guns have perfectly legitimate sporting, hunting, and wilderness protection uses. It's a no brainer- people who support stringent gun control and the banning of firearms are deluded.
that's right.
i've gone the way of over-kill and just kept the trigger locks on them as well.
You're the owner, who else could possibly be responsible?
To add to that. We never complain about Switzerland. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership per capita, more so than the US. The gov't expect every abled male to join the forces and be abled to defend the country on a short notice. More like every single male between 20-30 is in the reserve forces. They are issued a military rifle to bring home, and guess what? Gun crimes are almost non existent. People are most likely stabbed in switzerland than shot.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-is-so-low-that-statistics-are-not-even-kept/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Crime is not rampant in Switz. too.
My point here is education is key. Our mentality here is if its dangerous, we should ban it. We live in a bubble too much over here. If we never get to learn what is dangerous, Darwin will take its course
Ps. here is a guy doing shopping with his gun in Switzerland. Do u know what would happen if someone do that in Ontario??
I guess they're gonna put the poor doggie down
Last edited:
is the mother, father, or one of the children the owner? And what charge would it be? I'll look up an actual case on the web....I'm curious.......I find info for the states easily enough but not Canada:
"(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter."
not sure how well this would work:
I know that everywhere in the world, dead men tell no tales. If the intruder breaks in, make sure he's dead before you call the cops. Tell them that he said he had a gun and was going to kill you, and that you acted in self defense (either by killing him yourself, or sicing the dog on him).
Last edited:
Found my answer, and I like it:
The*Dog Owner’s Liability Act contains an important exception for a dog that protects its owner’s property. S. 3(2) says that if a person gets bitten or attacked by a dog while trying to commit a crime, the dog’s owner is not liable “unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property.”
http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/personal-injury-law/dog-bite-lawyer-in-toronto/
The*Dog Owner’s Liability Act contains an important exception for a dog that protects its owner’s property. S. 3(2) says that if a person gets bitten or attacked by a dog while trying to commit a crime, the dog’s owner is not liable “unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property.”
http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/personal-injury-law/dog-bite-lawyer-in-toronto/
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
I think the point is that violent crime in general has little to do with gun ownership and way more to do with socio-economic factors.
That being said. the US does have a level of gun crime that is way above other countries with similar poverty characteristics...
But hey, I am not an academic.
That being said. the US does have a level of gun crime that is way above other countries with similar poverty characteristics...
But hey, I am not an academic.
They 'might' have been arrested and charged with murder. It depends if there was probable cause. In this case she could have shot the guy, dragged him into her home then called 911 and made banging noises while praying to god. So, she could have been charged with murder based on all the info I've seen. I prefer it that way, it's called justice and no, it's not always pretty.
Another thing you keep saying is that everybody who gets charged with a crime gets "treated like a criminal". If so then that's another problem. Everyone should be treated as an accused criminal until they're found guilty or innocent
It was an irrelevant question to begin with. Akin to "If someone breaks into your house, how will you run away without legs?"
I was referring to your conversation with Bob
"The US" is a big place. Some states might as well be on a different planet. Thus, blanket generalizations about their crime rates (from a federal perspective) are just that.
New Hampshire, a state which carries the motto of "live free or die" and has some of the loosest gun laws in the country has almost the same firearms death rate as the state of New York, on the opposite end of the spectrum. DC, with the tightest gun laws, has the highest firearms death rate of all the states; by a wide margin.
There's sometimes correlation in the statistics, but that doesn't at all imply causation.
The disparity between some of the haves and have nots in the usa is shocking. specially with the lack of jobs out there, I don't know how some survive.
There's mobility between states that has to be figured into the analysis too. If my neighbour has an alarm but I don't, I am more likely to be targetted. That doesn't mean that alarms reduce crime, it just means that they apportion the target of crime differently. If I were to get an alarm, then we would have a more equal chance of being robbed.
Same with local gun/crime statistics. Guns may not affect crime rates, but they certainly displace it to places where guns are more restricted yet where the criminals are just as free to travel.
My best guess is guns would reduce crime rates overall, but they'd also increase the level of violence used to commit them. For those who are comfortable with that because they think they're a faster draw, or a better shot, or a more wily adversary... good luck with that. I'd prefer to focus on reducing the causes of crime rather than rely on anyone's supposed superior command of conflict to abate it.