Dial 911 And Die - What happens when the police DON'T COME???

Thats why I have a high caliber handgun. I live in Tucson, AZ. The average response time for the Sheriff's Dept. there is about 25 minutes (I live in the boonies so to speak). I'd be DEAD in that ammount of time, so why not place a single .45 ACP hollowpoint into the intruder's nasal cavity. He won't feel a thing as death is instantaneous from a wound like that (causes sever trauma to teh front of teh brain, actually splitting the hemispheres). People need to be more open minded about this. There are thousands of defensive handgun / rifle uses every year.

Think about it for a minute - can anyone HONESTLY say that if someone came into their house armed that they'd sit there and try and use friendly words to diffuse the situation? Seriously. Say you have a beautiful young wife and a little baby girl, would you sit there and say, "Gee mister, why are you so angry? I know you are hopped up on PCP and cocaine, and Iknwo you have every intention of shooting my beautiful family to death as you rob my house, but can you please put the gun down? Then we'll drink some tea together and hgave a nice talk and you can take whatever you want, I won't even telephone the police." Be real here. The police WON'T come to your aid in time. When your loved ones LIVES are on the line would anyone seriously consider anything other than blasting the fuck who came into your house? And if you didn't have a gun, what would you do? Grab a baseball bat, or a golf club, or perhaps a fire poker from your fireplace. But either way you're intent will be to protect YOUR family no matter what the cost.

In my opinion, anyone who intends to kill or injure another person has voided their own right to life. Anyone who wants to harm another person has made a conscious decision, and knows the risks involved. You never know, that guy you may want to mug might be concealing a glock subcompact and shoot you in the chest. Or maybe he has a knife and he'll gut you. Anyone who wants to harm another is taking a risk and they deserve whatever comes to them as a result.

And the whole no guns = less crime argument just doesn't make sense to me. Mankind is is not a happy friendly loving species. So what happens if you take away guns? Theres knives. Take those? Ok, a section of pipe, or a rock, or a tree branch or a pool cue or a 2 by 4, or a vehicle, or a piece of rebar, or even your bare hands. Improvised wepaons can be just as deadly as a glock, often moreso. A blunt impact trauma that causes severe internal damage is harder to treat in the field than a penetrating gunshot wound (depending on location). My cousin was struck in the head by a rock, and was in a coma for 6 months. He's "kind of" ok now, he walks all fucked up and has very slow reflexes and has a lot of trouble doing complex motor tasks. Thats not at ALL different from what a gunshot to the head can do to a person, but wait, he wasn't shot he was bludgeoned. A person not having a gun will NOT stop them from killing or seriously injuring another person if they really wanted to.

And "Assault Rifles?" People sometimes misconstrue assault rifles as thing of movies and mayhem. Not all of them are automatic. Not all of them have to have a 45 round magazine. Many people are against them because of their high magazine capacity, and yet FN makes a handgun with a 20 round magazine (and in fact most hanguns can carry extended magazines anyway, I have 18 round mags for my M9 I carry over here). So apart from the higher muzzle velocity and ability to punch thru Level 3A armor (or even level 4 depending on the round, EG an API round or a metal jacketed javelin round), it really isn't that much more evil than a high capacity Beretta pistol is it? They make pistol rounds capable of defeading hard body armor as well.

Depending on where you live, a high capacity and high caliber weapon may be essential. I deal with coyotes, mountain lions, javelinas, bears etc when I go camping, hiking or rock climbing. So of course I carry a firearm that can properly deal with that kind of threat. My weapon of choice? A Socom 16 (Essentially a modernized M14, a little shorter and with a scope mounted on top and a collapsing stock), which fires a 7.62x51 MM NATO round, and fires from a 20 round magazine (I carry 3). Is that so evil of me to want to protect myself from an animal that can kill me (or worse maim me beyond recognition)? Tho I'm a wicked shot it may take more than 1 or 2 shots to ake down a charging bear. From a highly trained shooter, I can tell you that more rounds is always better. Even afetr dropping a target I'm always ready to sink another round if I have to.

I don't consider myself to be a bad person or a murderer or anything of the sort. I do view myself as a realist. This is not a friendly world and you should be able to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I think it's more like throwing a baby shower for an abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevy Kev When I lived in Vegas I once peed in the elevator at the MGM, cut it off mid stream to let a family get in then finished peeing when they got out of the elevator.

quote:

Originally posted by SteelWolf I live in the boonies.

quote:

Originally posted by SteelWolf Seriously. Say you have a beautiful young wife and a little baby girl, would you sit there and say, "Gee mister, why are you so angry? I know you are hopped up on PCP and cocaine, and Iknwo you have every intention of shooting my beautiful family to death as you rob my house.

quote:

Originally posted by SteelWolf I do view myself as a realist.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by SteelWolf protect yourself and your loved ones from harm.

i'm pretty sure that is what most "bad guys" are trying to do also.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX What are forefathers intended is that every citizen be armed so that the new government could not become like the one they just fought to get rid of. No fucking shit I'm well aware that a citizen with an AR-15 is not going to be any match for an M1 tank or a B-2 bomber. However that does not change what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote that amendment.

Hmmm... did you read my post? Leaving aside the nature of the British government and its "oppressiveness" - something that is viewed with a lot of skepticism by most historians - I'd like to see you make an argument as to how the founding fathers' original intentions can be so clearly interpreted in that way. The majority of legal analysis I've read (including from most gun supporters) does not make that argument.

quote:

Either way, I'm out of this argument. This thread is full of people who live outside the US and have lived under strict gun control their entire lives plus a few from here in the US who don't own and have never fired a military style weapon (or probably any gun for that matter judging from some of the comments) so they can only repeat what they have been spoon fed by the anti-gun media. It is like trying to argue with Bill Clinton if a blow job counts as 'sexual relations' or not.

No, actually, I think a more apt analogy would be that it's like trying to argue whether cigarettes are bad for you with people who have never smoked before. You don't have to experience shooting an assault rifle to make a legal argument.

quote:

Just to clarify, I was never arguing that it should be legal to own fully automatic weapons. And maybe you think there is no reason to own an semi-automatic military style weapon too. Fortunately in this country we don't need reasons because we have rights.

Ah, I missed the part in the second amendment where it said "the right to bear semi-automatic military-style weaponry shall not be infringed."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Look at areas like Washington DC, they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and what is the crime rate there?

DC murder rate 1991: 80.6/100,000 residents
DC murder rate 2006: 29.1/100,000 residents

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov DC murder rate 1991: 80.6/100,000 residents DC murder rate 2006: 29.1/100,000 residents

1991 was the peak of the crack epidemic, you can't just compare the murder rate in 1991 to the murder rate in 2006 and say the decrease was a result of gun control. DC passed its strict anti-gun laws in 1976 and had 188 murders that year with a population of 792,000. In 1993 there were 454 murders with a population o f 578,000. That gun control really worked there didn't it?

By 1994 the crack wars were over and DC saw a steady decrease in murders, just like the entire rest of the country that has had less strict gun laws the entire time.

Last edited by XaNaX on May-03-2008 at 19:11

Agreed that a bald comparison of crime rates in two years is an unhelpful way of settling the debate.

The best predictor of a city or country's crime rate (as far as I know) is actually social inequality, which is very much present in DC, and also pretty huge in the U.S. as a whole compared to European countries and Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX 1991 was the peak of the crack epidemic, you can't just compare the murder rate in 1991 to the murder rate in 2006 and say the decrease was a result of gun control. DC passed its strict anti-gun laws in 1976 and had 188 murders that year with a population of 792,000. In 1993 there were 454 murders with a population o f 578,000. That gun control really worked there didn't it? By 1994 the crack wars were over and DC saw a steady decrease in murders, just like the entire rest of the country that has had less strict gun laws the entire time.

You would agree that "anti-gun" laws restrict the selling of guns, and don't magically take away any guns sold in previous years, yes?

Taking snapshots of the year immediately following the passage of a gun law isn't going to show much of anything - that's why I gave you two points in time. There were 149 murders in DC last year. That is the lowest figure since 1966.

In any case, using DC as your case is kind of ridiculous. I live in the District and it is literally a ten minute walk to the closest gun shop in Maryland. In addition, Virginia has among the most lax gun laws in the entire US. Treating DC as a separate entity for the purpose of this discussion is misleading on both sides.

___________________

Solve the inequality problem, and the crime will (mostly) take care of itself.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Solve the inequality problem, and the crime will (mostly) take care of itself.

I disagree. Inequality in DC is worse than ever, but the crime rate has come down. The majority of crime isn't poor-on-rich, though proponents of gun proliferation would have you believe that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The majority of crime isn't poor-on-rich...

Nope, most of it is poor on poor.