Do you shoot?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I think he said it much better than I did.

[Nathan F]

LOL, thank you, IRG. See, we SCNers can debate every now and then

[Darth Wong]

First off, they make small gunsafes that can be stored bedside that can be quickly opened due to an electronic combination lock that is easily openable in the dark. Secondly, if several armed men burst into your home with the intent on killing you, and if you are already dead, why not take some of the SOBs with you? If you are trained in how to effectively use your firearm, then you would actually have a chance. You would already know your house and know places where you could take cover while still being able to fire.

The gunsafe that would hold a rifle would have to be pretty big. And handgun proliferation is not a good idea; there is no finer weapon for criminals than the handgun.

I agree, both sides would be susceptible to selective logic, as in ANY debate. But it is clear that criminals will get their hands on guns whether or not they are outlawed or not. Look at drugs, they are outlawed, but does that stop people from getting them? No. Same goes for anything else illegal.

Huh? And drunks will continue to drive drunk regardless of whether it is outlawed or not, so we should make it legal, right?

The problem with the United States and gun violence (which, like it or not, is far, far greater than it is in most first-world nations) is not so much guns themselves as the underlying culture of societal mistrust, contempt for those less fortunate, and seemingly intractable social inequalities. That culture fosters resentment and causes crime, while simultaneously producing the desire for guns. It is not so much that one causes the other; it's that both are caused by the same underlying problem: a society that lives and dies by the credo: "looking out for number one."

Ah, the common 'Gun Culture' debate. Name a country that doesn't have the credo "Looking out for number one." It is common human nature, they call it self preservation. I thought you would know that, what with your debates with evolution and survival of the fittest.

Don't get all knee-jerk defensive, Nathan. The "looking out for number one" credo is much stronger in the US than it is in Canada. You yanks always seem to remember that when you're poking fun at us for our bleeding-heart social system. Why do you suddenly forget it now?

Also, once you get the number of cities with the density that the US has, you are bound to have high crime rates. I cannt think of another country that has the amount of large cities that the US does.

Actually, Toronto is the fifth largest metropolis in North America, well ahead of places like Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, San Diego, Dallas, etc. So why do we have only ~50-60 homicides a year despite ranking only behind LA, Mexico City, New York, and Chicago for population?

As for the original topic, I've never fired a gun, and I don't feel the need to carry one around with me for protection. But I'm not a bleeding-heart anti-gun type. I would certainly be interested in learning how to shoot one sometime, although the cost of buying the gun, getting a license etc. have kept me from ever acting on this idle curiosity.

Good for you. It is a fun, safe, and entertaining sport. I would recommend recreational shooting to ANYONE. Shooting is one of the safest sports around. You are much less likely to be hurt at the range than on the basketball court or baseball field. Shooting also encourages discipline, patience, and eye/hand coordination among children, so long as it is properly supervised by a trained adult. I can understand that you might not want to own a gun for personal protection, but, you must realize that other people DO.

Of course they do. If I lived in the US, I might feel the same way. You should not assume that the world lives as you do, or that everyone else in the world necessarily wishes to emulate your society.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Ummm....SCN?

On a side note, I fucked up on the poll. LOL I was thinking about conventional guns and voted no. But I just remember now that I have an air rifle I used to shoot a few years ago. So, technically, that IS shooting.

[Nathan F]

While the pistol might be the 'number one' weapon for criminals, it is also number one for self defense weapons. Like I said, once guns are outlawed, that will make law abiding civilians helpless against criminals who would really not care whether or not the guns they used were legal or not. In fact, most guns used in crime are ALREADY illegal. Like I said, might as well level the playing field.

Regarding your second statement, no, drunk driving should not be legal, because that has no benefit to any party involved. On the other hand, making guns illegal only hurts the law abiding citizen.

Concerning your third statement: I was a bit hasty, the US might have that a bit more than other countries. I will concede that too you.

Concerning your fourth statement: I was referring to the rest of the world. Canada does have unusually low murder rates compared to the rest of the world. I would say that this is in part due to low drug abuse rates.

And finally, I do not assume that the world lives as you do, nor do I assume that the rest of the world wishes to emulate the American society. The same goes for you. You might not want to own guns, but you should not assume that everybody else does not want to, or shouldn't for that matter.

[Nathan F]

Ummm....SCN?

SCN = Subspace Comms Network, Ex-Astris-Scientia's forums. Remember, we are the ones that about went head to head with yall a couple weeks ago.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Uh? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you provide a link to the threads?

[Beowulf]

why would you be using a rifle in a self protection scenario?

A very short barreled shot gun would be much more effective, hence the commonality of shotguns w/ 18 in barrels, and why sawed off shot guns were popualr until they were banned.

[Perinquus]

Perinquus, why did you write that Rob's break-in scenario is unlikely to happen in the US, and then give us an example of just such a horrible event from Kansas, which (unless my memory of geography is seriously distorted) happens to be in the US?

I'm rather surprised at you Mike. You're generally rather astute, so I woudn't have thought it necessary to point out to you that an event may occur from time to time, and yet remain a relatively rare phenomenon. You may recall that I said that hypothetical break in was unlikely to happen in the first place - not that it couldn't happen.

This whole example was provided to refure the assertion that if you just submit meekly and remain passive nothing bad is likely to happen to you. Statistically speaking, you are most likely to escape a violent attack if you resist with a gun, rather less likely to do so if you submit passively, and least likely of all to escape uninjured if you resist without a gun (Rob's example notwithstanding - there are, after all, exceptions to every rule; even an armed person would have been better off not using a gun in that instance, since when the attacker has already got you in a grip it is generally too late to draw, and any attempt to do so may lead to your being disarmed and having the gun turned on you).

The fact remains that home invasion-type burglaries are relatively rare in the United States. I stand by that assertion. Not only do we have that number of 13%, courtesy of the FBI crime statistics, that statistic alone does not tell the whole story. I suspect the majority of home invasions in the U.S. are unintentional. Let me give you an example from my own personal experience. Last year, I responded to a call of a burglary in progress. I was riding as a single officer unit that evening, but as luck would have it, I was literally right around the corner from the location of the call. My backup was only a couple of blocks away as well, and as a result, we arrived onscene less than three minutes after the 911 call was placed. What had happened was that the resident, a middle aged female, was home alone; her husband was out of town, and had their car - the driveway was thus empty. It was about 9:30 in the evening, and the lady heard a knock on her door. She was upstairs, in her bedroom, which was on the back side of the house, reading a book, just before going to bed. She thought it was most likely one of her neighbors, but as she was planning to turn in for the night shortly, she didn't feel like being bothered, and declined to answer the door. She then heard glass breakage from downstairs, and immediately grabbed the phone and called 911. When I pulled up, I quickly located the broken window. When my partner arrived, the dispatcher announced that the lady was now saying the burglar was actually in her room. I then entered through the same broken window that the burglar had, and my partner was right behind me. I almost shot him as he darted out of the bedroom, and started running down the stairs. He left the scene in the back of a police car.

The burglar targeted a house he felt sure was unoccupied - no car in the driveway, no lights visible from the street, no answer at the door. As soon as he entered the bedroom and found someone at home, he made a bee line for the exit, and had we not been so close when the call came out, he would have been gone by the time we arrived onscene.

Now for the statistics, the FBI counts every burglary that takes place while the resident is at home as a home invasion, regardless of circumstances. This was technically a home invasion by such criteria. But I can tell you that since October of 2000, when I went to work for the Norfolk Police Department, I have responded to an average of one to two burglary calls a week where the crime took place while the residents were out. I have investigated perhaps a dozen instances like the above, where the burglar clearly thought he was making entry into an unoccupied home (and that was the only one where we arrived in time to catch the suspect). In all that time I have investigated precisely ONE genuine, unabashed home invasion, where the criminals burst in, fully aware that the residents were at home. And in that case the criminals knew the tenant of the apartment and his guests, and knew that they played poker every Sunday night, and there'd be a fair amount of cash on the table ( and incidentally that there were no firearms in the house).

Admittedly, this is no kind of scientifically conducted survey, or statistical sampling, but I think it's revealing nonetheless.

If several armed men burst into your house with the intent of killing you, you're dead. If you're a responsible gun owner, your gun and ammo are locked up for safety reasons. You certainly don't want your kids mucking around with a loaded weapon, right? So in order to get your gun, you have to run upstairs, fumble with the combination lock, get your ammo out, then do the same for the gun, then load it. It doesn't seem all that airtight to me.

The solution to that is, as one person already posted, to get any of numerous gun safes on the marker that can be installed in a handy location, and permit quick access, even while the weapon is secure. I might also add that in that relatively small percentage of home invasions that do take place, it is not usual for the first inkling of danger to be the sight of an intruder standing over your bed. Not many of these shitbags are expert cat burglars; they often make good deal of noise getting in (they're not called break ins for nothing), and it often gives the homeowner ample warning to take action - particularly if he or she has an alarm, owns a dog, etc.

As for guns vs crime, I agree that we can't just say guns cause crime. However, I find it rather odd that people who see the illogic behind "guns cause crime" so easily can then turn around and spout the opposite: the guns reduce crime. And amazingly enough, they use many of the same goofy statistical correlations used by their opposite numbers to prove the opposite point! Are both sides so susceptible to selective logic?

Well, when I see 37 individual states enact laws that permit private citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits more easily, and further see all 37 states experience and immediate drops in their rates of violent crime, I don't think I am stretching the bounds of credibility if I see a correlation. Likewise, I don't believe I am using selective logic when I note that an armed populace may act as a deterrent to violent criminals - it is, after all, true that unarmed people may be attacked with greater confidence than armed people. When convicted burglars actually state that they avoid occupied dwellings because they, very sensibly, have no wish to be shot, I don't see any particular reason to disbelieve that statement, and look for ulterior motives. I see no logic in supposing that making guns illegal is going to deter criminals - who are by definition law breakers - from carrying them and using them.

I've been looking at this issue for years, and I'm convinced the balance of evidence weighs in on the side of those who argue that stringent gun control measure do not demonstrably lower crime rates, and that furthermore, an armed citizenry, capable of self defense, may in fact prevent a great many crimes.

The problem with the United States and gun violence (which, like it or not, is far, far greater than it is in most first-world nations) is not so much guns themselves as the underlying culture of societal mistrust, contempt for those less fortunate, and seemingly intractable social inequalities. That culture fosters resentment and causes crime, while simultaneously producing the desire for guns. It is not so much that one causes the other; it's that both are caused by the same underlying problem: a society that lives and dies by the credo: "looking out for number one."

I'm not entirely sure that these criticisms are either entirely fair, or at all unique to the U.S., but that's a whole other argument. I do think that banning guns, however, is likely to make the problem worse instead of better.

As for the original topic, I've never fired a gun, and I don't feel the need to carry one around with me for protection. But I'm not a bleeding-heart anti-gun type. I would certainly be interested in learning how to shoot one sometime, although the cost of buying the gun, getting a license etc. have kept me from ever acting on this idle curiosity.

See if your local range will let you rent one. I don't know how they work in Canada, but here in the U.S. any given pistol range will have a number of range guns which you can rent for a session. All you have to do is pay a small range fee and buy the ammo.

[Darth Wong]

I'm rather surprised at you Mike. You're generally rather astute, so I woudn't have thought it necessary to point out to you that an event may occur from time to time, and yet remain a relatively rare phenomenon. You may recall that I said that hypothetical break in was unlikely to happen in the first place - not that it couldn't happen.

The point I was making was that you were using anecdotal evidence to prove a point, even though the logic which would allow one to use it as proof would also lead to the disproof of your second point.

This whole example was provided to refure the assertion that if you just submit meekly and remain passive nothing bad is likely to happen to you. Statistically speaking, you are most likely to escape a violent attack if you resist with a gun, rather less likely to do so if you submit passively, and least likely of all to escape uninjured if you resist without a gun

That makes sense. Does this outweigh the cost to society of the greatly increased number of "crimes of passion" that seem to come along with this sort of culture, though? I used to live within broadcast range of the US, and the types of crimes you see there tend to be much different than the types of crimes you see here.

American crimes tend to be more random, and more brutal. If there's a homicide in Toronto (not that this happens nearly as often as it does in a comparably sized US city), the victim almost invariably knew the perp; there is some kind of connection and motive. So many violent crimes in the US, however, are stranger-on-stranger crimes. Many of them are purely random, and the level of violence on both sides is greater.

The fact remains that home invasion-type burglaries are relatively rare in the United States. I stand by that assertion. Not only do we have that number of 13%, courtesy of the FBI crime statistics, that statistic alone does not tell the whole story.

In Canada, 7% of reported robberies are home invasions according to Statistics Canada.

I suspect the majority of home invasions in the U.S. are unintentional. Let me give you an example from my own personal experience. Last year, I responded to a call of a burglary in progress. I was riding as a single officer unit that evening, but as luck would have it, I was literally right around the corner from the location of the call. My backup was only a couple of blocks away as well, and as a result, we arrived onscene less than three minutes after the 911 call was placed. What had happened was that the resident, a middle aged female, was home alone; her husband was out of town, and had their car - the driveway was thus empty. It was about 9:30 in the evening, and the lady heard a knock on her door. She was upstairs, in her bedroom, which was on the back side of the house, reading a book, just before going to bed. She thought it was most likely one of her neighbors, but as she was planning to turn in for the night shortly, she didn't feel like being bothered, and declined to answer the door. She then heard glass breakage from downstairs, and immediately grabbed the phone and called 911. When I pulled up, I quickly located the broken window. When my partner arrived, the dispatcher announced that the lady was now saying the burglar was actually in her room. I then entered through the same broken window that the burglar had, and my partner was right behind me. I almost shot him as he darted out of the bedroom, and started running down the stairs. He left the scene in the back of a police car.

The burglar targeted a house he felt sure was unoccupied - no car in the driveway, no lights visible from the street, no answer at the door. As soon as he entered the bedroom and found someone at home, he made a bee line for the exit, and had we not been so close when the call came out, he would have been gone by the time we arrived onscene.

Of course, most burglars do target unoccupied homes. There are many reasons for this besides fear of an armed homeowner, although I agree that might be a factor.

Now for the statistics, the FBI counts every burglary that takes place while the resident is at home as a home invasion, regardless of circumstances. This was technically a home invasion by such criteria. But I can tell you that since October of 2000, when I went to work for the Norfolk Police Department, I have responded to an average of one to two burglary calls a week where the crime took place while the residents were out. I have investigated perhaps a dozen instances like the above, where the burglar clearly thought he was making entry into an unoccupied home (and that was the only one where we arrived in time to catch the suspect). In all that time I have investigated precisely ONE genuine, unabashed home invasion, where the criminals burst in, fully aware that the residents were at home. And in that case the criminals knew the tenant of the apartment and his guests, and knew that they played poker every Sunday night, and there'd be a fair amount of cash on the table ( and incidentally that there were no firearms in the house).

Admittedly, this is no kind of scientifically conducted survey, or statistical sampling, but I think it's revealing nonetheless.

StatsCan found that an unusual percentage of home invasions are conducted against the elderly in Canada, for whatever that's worth.

The solution to that is, as one person already posted, to get any of numerous gun safes on the marker that can be installed in a handy location, and permit quick access, even while the weapon is secure. I might also add that in that relatively small percentage of home invasions that do take place, it is not usual for the first inkling of danger to be the sight of an intruder standing over your bed. Not many of these shitbags are expert cat burglars; they often make good deal of noise getting in (they're not called break ins for nothing), and it often gives the homeowner ample warning to take action - particularly if he or she has an alarm, owns a dog, etc.

Fair enough.

As for guns vs crime, I agree that we can't just say guns cause crime. However, I find it rather odd that people who see the illogic behind "guns cause crime" so easily can then turn around and spout the opposite: the guns reduce crime. And amazingly enough, they use many of the same goofy statistical correlations used by their opposite numbers to prove the opposite point! Are both sides so susceptible to selective logic?

Well, when I see 37 individual states enact laws that permit private citizens to obtain concealed weapons permits more easily, and further see all 37 states experience and immediate drops in their rates of violent crime, I don't think I am stretching the bounds of credibility if I see a correlation.

Similarly, when a shipment of handguns gets loose in Toronto and there is a sudden 50% spike in the number of homicides (which happened last year), people can cite the opposite correlation. Would you not object in that case either?

Likewise, I don't believe I am using selective logic when I note that an armed populace may act as a deterrent to violent criminals - it is, after all, true that unarmed people may be attacked with greater confidence than armed people. When convicted burglars actually state that they avoid occupied dwellings because they, very sensibly, have no wish to be shot, I don't see any particular reason to disbelieve that statement, and look for ulterior motives. I see no logic in supposing that making guns illegal is going to deter criminals - who are by definition law breakers - from carrying them and using them.

Who said anything about making all guns illegal? That is a very extremist view; most people only want some form of controls.

I've been looking at this issue for years, and I'm convinced the balance of evidence weighs in on the side of those who argue that stringent gun control measure do not demonstrably lower crime rates, and that furthermore, an armed citizenry, capable of self defense, may in fact prevent a great many crimes.

While causing many more. There is a balance; combine weapons and alcohol and stupid people (and like it or not, most people are either habitually stupid or capable of being periodically stupid), and you get a lot of these random violent acts I was talking about earlier, which crop up continuously and depressingly on American local TV news.

See if your local range will let you rent one. I don't know how they work in Canada, but here in the U.S. any given pistol range will have a number of range guns which you can rent for a session. All you have to do is pay a small range fee and buy the ammo.

I've never investigated that; I always assumed you had to go out and buy one. Of course, the laws may be different here in Canada.

[Nathan F]

That makes sense. Does this outweigh the cost to society of the greatly increased number of "crimes of passion" that seem to come along with this sort of culture, though? I used to live within broadcast range of the US, and the types of crimes you see there tend to be much different than the types of crimes you see here.

The aforementioned crimes of passion could be committed any number of ways, not just by firearms. By making it possible for law abiding civilians to get firearms, then you give these victims a way to defend themselves.

American crimes tend to be more random, and more brutal. If there's a homicide in Toronto (not that this happens nearly as often as it does in a comparably sized US city), the victim almost invariably knew the perp; there is some kind of connection and motive. So many violent crimes in the US, however, are stranger-on-stranger crimes. Many of them are purely random, and the level of violence on both sides is greater.

Yes, American crimes might be more random and brutal. Even more of a reason for a person to have a way of defending themselves. BUT, in the majority of crimes committed in the United States, the victim knew or was aquainted with the criminal. That is not to say that there arent alot of the aforementioned stranger-on-stranger crimes, such as muggings and random robberies. I still don't see what that has to do with the argument on gun control though. Regardless of who commits a crime, if the victim is armed, they have the ability to defend themselves agains the perpetrator of the crime.

In Canada, 7% of reported robberies are home invasions according to Statistics Canada.

Okay...

Of course, most burglars do target unoccupied homes. There are many reasons for this besides fear of an armed homeowner, although I agree that might be a factor.

The threat of being confronted by an armed, and most likely angry, occupant is most definitely a reason for not attacking a house while it is occupied.

StatsCan found that an unusual percentage of home invasions are conducted against the elderly in Canada, for whatever that's worth.

Having a smaller caliber handgun that would be able to be handled by the elderly gives them the ability to defend themselves against a robber, while if they were unarmed, they would be defenseless.

Similarly, when a shipment of handguns gets loose in Toronto and there is a sudden 50% spike in the number of homicides (which happened last year), people can cite the opposite correlation. Would you not object in that case either?

Yes, there is a definite correlation. Of course, this number would also most likely be smaller if the populace was armed itself. This is a perfect case of the criminals being the only ones armed.

Who said anything about making all guns illegal? That is a very extremist view; most people only want some form of controls.

There are ALREADY controls. Concealed carry permits, magazine restrictions, etc. As previously stated, the majority of firearms used in crimes are already illegal (stolen, illegal features, black market, etc.).

While causing many more. There is a balance; combine weapons and alcohol and stupid people (and like it or not, most people are either habitually stupid or capable of being periodically stupid), and you get a lot of these random violent acts I was talking about earlier, which crop up continuously and depressingly on American local TV news.

Combine cars, alcohol and stupid people and you get problems. Combine hammers, alcohol, and stupid people and you get problems. Combine power tools, alcohol, and stupid people and you get problems. Odd, do you want to make power tools, cars, and hammers illegal or put it so that the hammer has to be a certain size to be able to be used? Alcohol and stupid people are always a bad combination. Also, take the American TV news with a grain of salt, they are notorious for telling half truths and not getting their facts right. Sometimes bordering on yellow journalism. Also, guns are used more likely to be used by a law abiding citizen in sport or defense many more times than they are to be used in committing a crime.

See if your local range will let you rent one. I don't know how they work in Canada, but here in the U.S. any given pistol range will have a number of range guns which you can rent for a session. All you have to do is pay a small range fee and buy the ammo.

I've never investigated that; I always assumed you had to go out and buy one. Of course, the laws may be different here in Canada.[/quote] I would suggest you look into that. I would bet that most ranges would have rental firearms for you to use.

[MKSheppard]

I've never investigated that; I always assumed you had to go out and buy one. Of course, the laws may be different here in Canada.

Heh, there's a range near me that allows you to rent MP-5s and MP-40s
and go rock and roll at full auto for the price of like $50 bucks and
showing a gov't issued photo ID

[Utsanomiko]

I've never investigated that; I always assumed you had to go out and buy one. Of course, the laws may be different here in Canada.

Heh, there's a range near me that allows you to rent MP-5s and MP-40s
and go rock and roll at full auto for the price of like $50 bucks and
showing a gov't issued photo ID

Bah, lucky little punk.

Oh well, at least here since my parent's house is outside city limits, I can shoot on their property (as longs as it's generally towards the south, away from the road and other houses). I ought to do some clay bird shooting sometime again. Apparently, I'm a natural crack-shot with a shotgun; got 2 out of my first 3, with a Browning 20 guage semi-auto, iirc.

My favorite for clay birds though is my dad's LC Smith Crowngrade 12 guage side-by-side (it was a custom job for the guy that my grandfather bought it from), which just happens to have my exact length-of-pull. OH my god, it's like it's an extension of my body, I'm almost unstopable with that baby.

[Perinquus]

Well Mike, your fears that people may grab the nearest handy firearm in a fit of temper or of drunken rage, and shoot the person that they're having an argument with is a concern that is constantly echoed down here, and in fact is frequently used by pro-gun control groups as a justification for outlawing firearms.

The thing is, it's just not that common. Examples of, let's say domestic violence, where it balloons out of control and finally one of them, mad with rage, grabs a firearm and blows the other one away, just don't occur very frequently. The recent changes to the concealed carry laws to make it easier for private citizens to get them are a perfect example. In every state, including Virginia where I live, supporters of gun control were saying: "what! Are you people insane? It'll be like Dodge City. People will be getting into gunfights at traffic accidents and in bars and everywhere else where they get into arguments. Suspicious people will be shooting people who happen to be walking behind them. The homicide rate will go through the roof!"

Turns out, nothing like that happened anywhere where the new laws were enacted. Even rabid pro gun control activists (the more honest ones) have admitted rather sheepishly that they were dead wrong in their predictions. In Florida, the first state to enact the new "shall issue" type law for law abiding citizens not only experienced 21% decrease in its homicide rate (at the same time the U.S. rate rose 12%). From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

I think you may overstate what you seem to regard as the inherent lawlessness of American society. The fact is that law abiding citizens are, in fact, law abiding. And the people who are willing to jump through all the hoops you have to jump through, and undergo all the official scrutiny - to undergo a criminal background check, be fingerprinted, pay a fee for the CCW permit, and pay for a state mandated training and safety course, undergo still another background check when they purhase a gun, etc. - are simply not the people you need to be afraid of.

[Perinquus]

I've been looking at this issue for years, and I'm convinced the balance of evidence weighs in on the side of those who argue that stringent gun control measure do not demonstrably lower crime rates, and that furthermore, an armed citizenry, capable of self defense, may in fact prevent a great many crimes.

While causing many more. There is a balance; combine weapons and alcohol and stupid people (and like it or not, most people are either habitually stupid or capable of being periodically stupid), and you get a lot of these random violent acts I was talking about earlier, which crop up continuously and depressingly on American local TV news.

I've got to disagree with you on this particular point. Those FBI uniform crime reports show that there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars. So I simply do not buy the argument that an armed populace prevents many crimes only at the cost of causing many more. It's not the armed, law abiding citizens that are causing these crimes. It's a small subset of hardcore criminals. To fix this problem we need to make some changes to our courts and sentencing, rather than ban guns, which is a cure that is likely to be worse than the disease, since it does nothing to address these unreformed criminals.

[Nathan F]

Tougher Courts = Less crime

Tougher Gun Laws = More Crime

[MKSheppard]

http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-s ... -headlines

Arundel police probe fatal shooting
Woman tells authorities she killed 1 of 2 men who entered her house in burglary attempt

By Ben Pillow
SunSpot Staff
Originally published January 28, 2003, 1:30 PM EST

Anne Arundel County police today are investigating the fatal shooting of a

man last night by a woman who told officers she opened fire on the victim after he and another man entered her home in an attempted burglary.

Just after midnight, police were called to 7794 Fox Court in Pasadena, where the woman told officers that two men had gotten into her home through an unlocked front door and had accosted her while she was lying in bed, demanding cash and jewelry, according to authorities.

The woman told police that both men were armed with handguns, but during the confrontation, she was able to get a handgun from a dresser drawer and shot one of the men "multiple times" in the upper body, authorities said. The second suspect then ran away, the woman told police.

The shooting victim, who remains unidentified pending an autopsy, was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said. Police continue to search for the second suspect, described only as black. The woman's name is being withheld by authorities since the second man has not been identified or found.

No charges have been filed in the case, and the shooting remains under investigation. Any decision on charges will be made by the Anne Arundel County state's attorney's office after the police investigation is completed.

Anyone with information on the incident is urged to call Anne Arundel County police at 410-222-6145 or 410-222-3460.

***********

Gee, according to Rob Wilson, this woman shouldn't have returned
fire, and just have meekly submitted to the two assailants...as we
all know women can't aim right

[Nathan F]

The Times, Crown Point, IN, 2/21/01

Kirit Patel steeled himself when a man entered his Indiana candy store, pulled out a gun and told Patel he would die unless he emptied the cash register. Patel simply pulled his own .38 Spl. cal. handgun and said, "You made the biggest mistake. I don't care about my life. If you care about yours, you'd better drop it." He further advised the younger man, "I'm 50 years old. You may have 50 years left. If you don't follow my instructions, I'll take you with me." He then told the would-be robber to drop his gun and lie on the floor, which is where police found him when they arrived.
----------
Newsday, Melville, N.Y., 8/5/00

Eighty-four-year-old William Harris was in his Southampton, N.J., home one morning when a man intent on burglary ripped out a back porch door screen and broke a chain on the kitchen door, according to police. When Harris, recovering in bed from cataract surgery, heard roommate Benjamin Davis yell out a warning, he grabbed his 16-ga. shotgun from a closet. When he met the intruder in the darkened kitchen, the man thought the better of his plan and fled. Davis later said of Harris, "He's not a pushover. He'll stand up as long as he can to whatever he has to."
----------
The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC, 11/18/98

A number of unsolved burglaries and a subsequent string of sexual assaults near the University of North Carolina's Charlotte campus had female residents there fearing for their safety. It was that heightened sense of awareness, and an armed citizen, that helped prevent yet another attack. Twenty-six-year-old Adrian Rodricka Cathey entered a woman's apartment early one morning and assaulted her with a knife. This time, however, the intended victim fought back, retrieving a firearm and shooting her assailant. Cathey, who had a record of arrests on charges of rape and attempted murder, was later found dead in a parking lot.

--------------------------------

If these aforementioned people had not been armed, they most likely would have been robbed, raped, or killed. Since they were armed, they all had the ability to fight back against their attackers.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it that it's impossible to say that I think it's a good idea to regulate guns without people converting that into "let's ban guns"? I have pointed out two or three times already to Perinquus among others that I'm not for a total gun ban; just reasonable restrictions. His response? That reasonable restrictions are OK but a gun ban is not. What is the point of disagreement here?

[Nathan F]

But there are already restrictions. BTW, why should you worry? The Canadian gun laws are already pretty restrictive, if you ask me.

I do believe that this debate has lived to the end of its useful life, as it has become a moot point.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I realize that I will tread perilous ground in responding to the earlier question of regulation; the reason is twofold. First, yes -- it is a moot point. It is unlikely that anything a citizen says is going to impact legislation in any way. Second, my technical skills in reasoning on still somewhat uncertain. I will postulate, though, that the restrictions already in place are sufficient to the purpose of keeping personal weaponry out of the hands of those who have in some way abused and subsequently been stripped of their right to acquire it. The reason these people still do acquire guns is that we do not live in a society which allows the government to monitor private life closely enough to prevent unauthorized weapons acquisitions. That, frighteningly enough, may chance.

To answer the on=topic question: I do shoot. I prefer an IMI Desert Eagle .50 Magnum. Some say this is too much gun; I do not agree. If you are going to shoot something -- or, God forbid, are forced to shoot someone -- by all means, do it with Authority. In this same vein of thinking, there is also nothing quite like a Remington 870 Marine Defender 12ga., or almost any H&K product. There are some things German manufacturer's do well, and firearms are certainly one of them.

[Perinquus]

ITo answer the on=topic question: I do shoot. I prefer an IMI Desert Eagle .50 Magnum. Some say this is too much gun; I do not agree. If you are going to shoot something -- or, God forbid, are forced to shoot someone -- by all means, do it with Authority. In this same vein of thinking, there is also nothing quite like a Remington 870 Marine Defender 12ga., or almost any H&K product. There are some things German manufacturer's do well, and firearms are certainly one of them.

You have to be careful here. There is such a thing as too much gun, at least when firing at a human target. The fact is that, strange as it may seem, a .357 magnum is a better manstopper than a .44 magnum or a .50 AE. The problem is that those hotter rounds tend to overpenetrate, so instead of remaining in the body and delivering all their kinetic energy to the target, they go right through, carrying much of it away with them as they proceed onward. The .357 actually has a much better record of one shot stops than the .44 magnum does. There is also the issue of liability. Do you really want to fire a round that is going to overpenetrate and maybe hit some innocent bystander behind the target?

The other thing to consider is the aftermath of the shooting - specifically the legal end. If you ever have to shoot someone, you may be charged with murder. The responding officers may very well arrest you and leave it to the detectives to determine culpability, and you may find yourself in court. Even if you ar cleared of any criminal charges, that doesn't for a moment mean that Mrs. Scumbag won't sue you for depriving her and her 6 illegitimate children of their sole means of support; so you may have a civil trial to deal with as well.

A sharp lawyer will use every trick in the book, dirty included, to make you look guilty. If you use a .50 caliber Desert Eagle, I can practically guarantee he is going to try and portray you to the jury as an irresponsible, macho, Rambo wanna be, just itching for an excuse to blow someone away. Even if he doesn't succeed in getting you convicted with this tactic, it'll sure prolong your trial and you'll end up spending a boatload of money in legal fees. For this reason, you should really choose a more sensible firearm if it is your intent to use it for home defense (I presume that is the defense you mean, since that behemoth won't conceal under a winter parka), and for this same reason, you should avoid like pink pork all t-shirts, bumper stickers, signs, etc. with slogans like: "Forget the dog, beware of owner!", "This property protected by Smith & Wesson", "Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again." etc. (Incidentally, these things also let burglars know it might be worthwhile breaking into your house while you're away.)

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Indeed. You have a point, Perinquus. However, I recommended the Remington 870MD as well as the IMI. Let me state, then, the purposes for which I own these weapons. The Remington is the home defense weapon. Fortunately, it has never been called into action. The IMI is the weapon I typically carry openly. I have a CCW, but I prefer to openly carry a large, intimidating weapon as a deterrent. Were I ever to actually have my bluff called, I have received tactical firearms training. Based on that training, my response would be to not fire the IMI unless the aggressor were attempting on someone's life from inside an M1-A2 tank.

[Perinquus]

You'd still be a lot better off with a .45 automatic, or something along those lines. There are all kinds of reasons to avoid the Desert Eagle for that purpose. There is the issue of how it will be portrayed in court; there is the issue of overpenetration and possible hitting of innocent bystanders when using such an overly powerful catridge on a human target; there is the fact that you are actually less likely to effect a one shot stop with that thing than you are with a hangun better optimized for performance against a human target; there is the fact that such a heavy, long barrelled pistol will be significantly slower to draw from the holster than something like say a Glock, or a 4" barrelled .357; and finally, such a weapon has a rather stout recoil impulse, which will significantly reduce your recovery time between shots - in other words, it's less controllable.

There is a reason you never see the real pros carrying weapons like that. In fact, all due respect, but to anyone who knows much about firearms, you look less intimidating with that thing, because you look like a guy who doesn't know much about handguns, and who picked something rather impractical just because it looks "bad". If you really want to look intimidating, find out what the real expert shooters out there carry, and emulate them.

Oh, an incidentally, if you have a CCW, I'd carry concealed, not openly. It's smarter tactically. You can still avoid the great majority of trouble just by being alert to your surroundings and not letting people surprise you. And the fact is, you are walking around with a large, expensive piece of hardware on your hip. Criminals love to steal guns; they bring a good price. The fact of your being armed openly may very well make make a mugger target you who would otherwise leave you alone, and the fact of your being armed openly just means he will be careful to get you by surprise. Once you are staring down the barrel of a loaded revolver, it's too late for you to take action; he's got the drop on you. You won't outdraw an already drawn gun, especially not with that huge, unwieldly cannon.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I agree. Get another Remington and do whatever you want with the IDI.