Guns, guns, and more guns.

[AlecWest]

Why not combine gun control with nut-control?

Why not combine auto control with drunk driver control?  Because the auto isn't the villain.

You are always going to have mentally disturbed people in any country. The difference is that if they have any kind of access to firearms, they can cause a lot more damage than if they can say not access anything more dangerous than a knife.

And that's why my "reform" suggestion places an obstacle in the way of that access.  Besides, nuts wouldn't limit themselves to a common knife if they wanted to kill people.  Bombs can be made out of fertilizer (the Oklahoma City bombing) ... and cars can make useful weapons:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130214/third-japanese-dies-after-guam-tourist-attack-0

He did use a knife, though - but only after his car came to a halt.

If that kid had been in Europe, we would not have been able to get hold of the weapons in the first place as they would have been locked away at the gun club and not freely accessible in his mother's home.

I would hope that in a country with universal health care, the kid's mental impairment would have been discovered before a "weapon" came into play.  And assuming he had a documented case of mental impairment, there's no way he could have gotten a weapon if guns were legal and my "reform" suggestion was in force.

Sure, you can still kill someone with a knife, but with a millitary style machine gun you can kill a lot more people.

Huh???  Adam Lanza didn't have even one machine gun in his possession.  He had 1 semi-automatic rifle, 2 semi-automatic pistols, and (in his car) a shotgun.  And when it comes to the capacity of magazines ... well, how long do you think it takes to eject one clip and insert another?  Even a gun using the politically-correct 10-round magazine suggested by gun-control people would be a formidable gun if a culprit had a clip caddy on his belt.

There have been such situations in Europe, there was a particually bad case in Norway not long ago. But that was done by an extremest who went to tremendous measures to obtain the weapons he used. Not something a simple kid like in Sandy Hook would have been able to do.

And therein lies the rub.  If someone is determined to get a weapon, they will get a weapon.  Criminals, nuts, and extremists  tend to be determined  people.  They would ignore gun control laws and, at the same time, be emboldened to use guns they know law-abiding citizens can't access.

Last December, a community newspaper in New York state published an interactive map on their website - allowing visitors access to the names/addresses of locally registered gun owners.  Most gun owners were outraged.  I actually thought it was a great idea that needed to be taken one step further.  I'd have published a 2nd interactive map allowing visitors access to the names/addresses of local area anti-gun activists.  Then underneath both maps would be this note:

You've seen the names/addresses of registered gun owners.  And you've seen the names/addresses of anti-gun activists.  Tell me, Mr. Criminal, who would you most likely target for home-invasion ... a resident who would likely fall to his knees and beg, "Oh, God, please don't hurt me," ... or a resident who might send you to the morgue?

Criminals are like electricity.  They tend to follow the path of least resistance.  Extremists or other nuts?  To them, the path probably doesn't matter since the end likely justifies the means.

Again, I agree that some kind of stun gun should be available for self-defense, but not the widespead arming of the population with heavy weapons. If the weapons are so easily available, someone is going to use them and innocent people are going to get hurt.

I wish there was a foolproof non-lethal means of defense.  But according to Amnesty International, taser style weapons broke the 500-death mark February 2012 - and that's just in the U.S.  But on weapons, the fact they're so easily available is not the problem.  It's the fact they're so easily available to the WRONG PEOPLE.

Now I know that my opinions are not going to change anything in the USA, but I feel it is important to at least get you guys thinking about the fact that other countries are very different in how they handle gun control and have far fewer deaths because of it.

I think you and I are at least on "part" of the same page.  But in the U.S., I honestly feel that the way to prevent the most deaths (at least 65% of them according to statistics) is to make sure nuts don't get their hands on them.  And I also believe that at least part (perhaps a significant number) of the 32% homicide rate involves a mentally impaired culprit.  Various gun-control methods have already been tried in this country - with lackluster success.  Regulating possession of a firearm based on a mental health screening has the virtue of never having been tried.

In my opinion, the only way to form a balanced opinion is to have a good impartial look at what both sides of the argument are saying and check any facts you find are important.

There are some authors I no longer read because past works were disappointing.  This is especially true of non-fiction authors (or filmmakers) whose past works were disappointing.  However, on the off-chance that Moore redeemed himself in the film, I will see if I can get a rental copy of "Bowling For Columbine" to watch it.  Fair enough?

I have certainly read the pros and cons presented by both sides of the argument to try and understand it. My personal conclusion is that I prefer people to settle their differences without guns playing a role in it.

This is not about politics, it is about respecting life.

I agree ... as long as respecting our "own" lives is part of the deal.  I might be lucky enough to never use my gun for anything other than target shooting.  But if someone crawls through my bedroom window at 3am, respect for my own life will supercede respect for the life of the person invading my home.

P.S.  Just one final thing on "politics" (in Washington state).  Our Governor is a Democrat.  And the legislature is almost an even split between Republicans (51%) and Democrats (49%).  Recently, 4 gun-control bills were introduced.  One of them "died" two days ago, the other 3 died yesterday.  By "died," I mean they didn't even get enough support to put them up for a floor vote.

There's a popular misconception in U.S. politics that Republicans are pro-gun and Democrats are anti-gun.  But the issue of gun rights vs. gun control knows no party alignment.  There are some Republicans who support gun control.  But in Washington state at least, there are far more Democrats who support gun rights (my rep does).  I'd guess a lot of Democrats are gun owners ... they just don't tend to talk about it all that much.  I've no doubt this is true in other states, too.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[Lost Shuttle 2]

I'm not going to get into all the where fors (?)  and whereas to owning a gun, I have a belief that the second amendment has nothing to do with a teen whose first gun is to go out and shoot deer, rabbits or any other animal that cannot shoot back so please stop using it as a reason for owning one now you are an adult. It’s a cop out. Did you really think about that when you got your first gun as a teen?

Any of you who as an adult who owns one and use the second amendment as your right to have it, may I ask how many drills or what have you do you go to so IF you are ever need to be called in to service you know what you are going to do and not run around like a hen with its head cut off. Hence the *Well organized militia * said in the second amendment.

Not everyone had a gun back during the Revolutionary War, heck not everyone here had a gun to use in the War of 1812.So if you are under the impression they did it’s a falsehood perpetuated by Hollywood.

It takes very little time to change an empty clip for a full one.so no changing the amount allowed in a clip would not make much difference to a person out to do as much damage as they can in a short time.

Just so you know I am not some female who has never been around a gun or know anything about them, my father and his friends would have target practice at each other’s homes, while they were here one time someone put me in line handed me the rifle and told me go for it, I did, I was told had it been a real rabbit I would have killed it instantly my first shot. I was 9 years old. My mom and her mom knew how to use a gun, my nephews have guns, my older sister got hers to go hunting…heck half the neighborhood could have guns for all I know. I grew up hearing the saying an empty gun kills. And as the saying about not drawing a sword unless you plan on using it, you don’t draw a gun unless you plan to either.

I just do not understand the big deal of a waiting period so a person can be checked out to see if they should have a gun. And  don’t talk to the person best friends, so they can’t be talked into saying they think a guy should have one…If you are not going out to do something illegal with it why can’t you wait for a background check to be sure you should have one? And I know crooks do not wait they just beg, borrow or steal one.

If I read right there are over 2,000 laws on the books about gun control and we still have events like Sandy Brook. how many dose it take to get the job done?

[barbreader]

Concerning auto control and drunk driver control, you will probably find in the next few years that cars will test your breath and not start if you are impaired by drink.  Hate to break it to you.  A drunk without a car is a lot less likely to kill you than a drunk with a car.  Texting... same idea.  By the way, Europeans are a lot less likely to text and drive than Americans.  They sure do act like they value their lives over there!

On the gun issue, I find the choices inadequate to express my view.  As with most things, I find most arguments bogus, and have my own opinion, which nobody cares about anyway...   (Anyone who is interested can read my novel if I ever get it published... I have no idea what the name will be, it's been both Music of the Spheres and Wealth and God, and yes, it's non-Trek Sci Fi, set mostly on earth.  Most people who have read it tell me it shook them up a lot.  Good.) 

However, I find myself moved a bit on my position about guns by reading comments by the European posters.  I had read the statistics before, but reading them with a real voice from Europe has given me pause.  Most people I know who do not live in New York City have guns.  I do not personally know any collectors.  I did date a survivalist who slept with his guns, though.  He also was afraid to come into New York City because he was sure the day he came in would be the day it got nuked.  Beware:  Unlike me, he attends Sci Fi conventions.

I know people in the psychiatric profession who are fearful because a previous client with whom they did not part on good terms got a gun.  Patient rights to confidentiality stop these providers from putting these people on a no-gun list.  So far, my friends have not been shot, but I do understand their fear.  One of these people have difficulty with their hands and other problems that arming themselves is not an option. 

I cannot really imagine a society in which most people don't have guns, outside of New York City, where there is literally a cop within half-a-mile at all times, (usually within a quarter-mile) so you don't really need your own private gun.  Also, the problems of innocent bystanders being shot is great inside a dense city like New York.  But I also just can't imagine living an hour's drive from the nearest police station and not having a gun. 

A simple cell phone app could be developed to allow quickie background checks for private gun sales.  The database for these checks, however, needs to be improved as there are 14 states that have refused to participate in building the database.  Opposition to this seems to come primarily from the fear that if we keep guns out of the hands of insane people and criminals, people who don't like guns won't feel compelled to own them, and gun sales will decline.  Most homicides and suicides are done with hand guns, so the so-called 'assault weapons ban' seems to be wrong-headed.  I do like the idea of limiting the size of individual clips.  I understand that some people can re-load quickly, but most people have to at least pause to reload.   One gun enthusiast I know wants guns to 'mark' bullets as they are fired.  I have no idea of that could be done.  He also favors universal registration, which shows he is unusual, as most gun enthusiasts I meet dream openly about shooting the governor of NY or the POTUS, and putting 'real Americans' like him (it's always a him) back in charge like they belong. 

To the European posters:  It does sound nice, living in a civilized society, but I'm an American.  I can't imagine a society without guns.  But I live in NYC, in a secure building with 300 other families.   We have people we pay to guard the door 24-7-365.  I personally don't have a gun and don't need one.   But the USA is full of them, and that's not likely to change within my lifetime.

ONE MORE THING:  Some of the gun enthusiasts I know think the 1934 act is unconstitutional, and Justice Scalia as all but said as much.  Scalia has stated that the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that Americans have a right to own weapons of war privately, as long as they can 'bear' (carry) them.  I am waiting for his ruling on suitcase nukes.

[AlecWest]

Peter,

My local mom/pop video store had a copy of "Bowling For Columbine."  And, at 99 cents for one day rental, it was the right price.  Like some of his other efforts, this film was a "rambling" diatribe.  Out of a 2-hour film, my guess is that about 15-20 minutes worth was "on topic" (Columbine).  The rest of the film could be divided into four parts, between which he "bounced around."  The first part dealt with the effects of "poverty" on violence (and not just gun violence).  The current gun-control proposals at the Federal level would not have any effect on the causal factor of poverty.  In fact, it didn't have anything to do with Columbine, either (Buell, Michigan).  The second part dealt with Moore's personal hatred of defense contractors (specifically Lockheed-Martin).  The current gun-control proposals at the Federal level would have no effect on Lockheed-Martin.  The third part dealt with the U.S. being the foreign-policy "bad guy" (a favorite bad guy to Moore).  To some extent, I agree with him.  But the current gun-control proposals at the Federal level would have no effect on that foreign policy.  And finally, the fourth part was typical Moore grandstanding and showboating ... from his cartoon where a bullet discusses U.S. history, to his talks with various nut-jobs, to his interview with Charlton Heston at the end - the Jerry Springer "attack interview" style.  Kudos to Heston for cutting the interview short and just walking away.

FWIW, I must say that in the Heston speech segments impressed me a lot.  When Littleton, Colorado asked the NRA to stay away from a pre-planned NRA regional public meeting, he answered appropriately.  The NRA isn't a handful of pointy-heads.  It's millions of men and women who come from all walks of life.  Heston said, approximately, "Stay away?  The NRA is already here."

Bottom lines?  (1) None of what Moore said convinced me that gun control would work to solve the problems he wanted to solve.  And, (2) nothing was mentioned in the film that linked mental impairment to gun violence.  (3) The rented DVD has already been returned - and I suspect "Bowling For Columbine" will be the last Moore documentary I ever watch.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[trekcon]

barbreader's post was very interesting and at the same time shocking to me. The kind of life she is describing is so far removed from what I have experienced all my life, that I felt I needed to respond to this.

In the UK, I lived near London and visited the city often. At that time (in the 70s), there were still bombs going off that were planted by the IRA so a trip there did have its risks, even if minimal. The attitude of the Londoner's was simply "if I get killed or hurt then it is tough luck, but the chances are very small and I am not going to stop going into London because of this." You can walk about most parts of London late at night and not have to worry about much, certainly not being shot at. Not even the police carry guns there. I always felt safe walking around London - a city of similar population to New York. Sure, you could have your money stolen by pickpockets or be run over by a London bus, but not much else is likely to happen.

I now live in the German city of Cologne - a city of about a million inhabitants. I can walk around the city centre at 2am feeling perfectly safe. Never has the fear of guns ever been an issue. The only guns I have ever seen were in the holsters used by police here, I have never seen them need to use them. Sure, I have visited Berlin before and after the fall of the wall and remember the eastern boarder guards who were told to shoot any escaping east germans - but I never witnessed anything like that. There were plenty of guns on show however.

Other than that, the worst I have ever experienced is a drunk on the underground railway asking me to tell him I did not like his face. He obviously was looking for a fight so I responded that I could not do that because I liked the way he looked (I lied, he was pretty ugly). Anyway, he turned away and picked on somebody else.

The way Barbara describes how psyciatrists are worried about their patients having guns sounds very wierd to me. Nobody here has worries about guns in the least, because virtually nobody has any. The whole concept of normal people carrying a gun with them is totally unheard of over here. I have never seen any private person ever having a gun with them at all. It is a complete non-issue and frankly I am glad about it. I do not need those kind of fears in my life. There is no danger of innocent bystanders getting shot, because nobody walks around with guns wanting to shoot anyone.
Yes, there are people who get into fist fights and as we have large immigrent population from Turkey and Italy, the chances of them having a knife is quite high - but guns, never heard of it.

I did have a friend once (in fact I still know him vaguely) who was interested in collecting guns, in particualar those used in the second world war. He had quite a collection but they were all non-working replicas - not one of them was real or could be fired and he never expressed the wish to have a working gun.

If you ask people here what they think about the American way of life, you generally get the following answer: The people are often very friendly and open, but they have really strange ideas about wanting to have guns and not wanting universal health care. Both concepts are seen as crazy as we love having a safe societly and the knowledge that if you get sick or have an accident, you will receive top quality care without having to be concerned about what it will cost. The concept that we have "socialist medicine" is laughed at as being so far from reality that maybe such Americans who believe it really are nuts or indocrinated by properganda! I have a few American friends who now live here and they love the piece of mind that no guns bring you as well as our excellent health care system. For many, that is reason enough not to ever want to live in the USA again.

My brother lives in Florida (north of Orlando) so I often discuss the American way of life with him. He finds the gun culture in the states crazy too, even though his political views are pretty much alligned with the Tea party (he listens to Rush Limbaugh, I am embarrassed to admit).

I live in a block of flats in a large complex of appartment buildings. There is not one security guard here and I have never seen any need for one. The worst crime I have heard of here is that your bicycle could get nicked if you do not lock it up properly. The only people you see looking after the property are the caretaker and the gardeners. The concept of needing guards for protection is frightening to me - how do you people stand for such a life built on fear?

There are downsides of course, German TV is very boring (endless talk shows with politicians on prime time TV), but luckily I can receive British TV which is excellent.

In conclusion, I can see that life is very different between living in Europe and the USA and frankly I am happy to be on this side of the pond.

[AlecWest]

Concerning auto control and drunk driver control, you will probably find in the next few years that cars will test your breath and not start if you are impaired by drink.

Those kind of cars have been around for a while, just not required to be built that way from the factory.  And right about the same time they came around, inveterate drunks discovered the "balloon trick."  You blow up a few balloons before you get drunk, placing them in the back seat of your car.  Then later when you want to drive (and each time you start your car), affix a balloon to the breathalyzer and simply let the "balloon" exhale into it for a "pass."  I suppose that's why no factory mandate has ever been proposed.

Anyway, the reason I responded to Peter that way was to suggest that banning automobiles just because some people drive drunk punishes the overwhelming majority of people who don't drive drunk.  Similarly, banning/restricting gun ownership just because some people misuse firearms punishes the overwhelming majority of people who don't misuse firearms.

And, on a similar (humorous) note, banning 24-ounce sugary drinks just because some people are obese punishes the overwhelming majority of people who, through exercise and/or their personal metabolism, can drink them day and night without ever becoming obese.  On that note, I think I'll toast Mayor Bloomberg with a 24-ounce cup of Mountain Dew.  NO ... wait a minute.  Make mine a 32-ounce cup of Mountain Dew (with no ice).
 
And heck, let's go one step further and ban casinos because a "fraction" of the people who visit them become addicted to gambling.  After that, we could ban alcohol because ... oh, wait a minute, we already tried that.
 

In conclusion, I can see that life is very different between living in Europe and the USA and frankly I am happy to be on this side of the pond.

Well, the U.S. has always had the Second Amendment.  And while its allowance of a "well-regulated militia" has been spun into a blanket allowance for private gun possession, a large number of people (like me) are thankful for that spin.  By virtue of our population alone, U.S. citizens are pummeled almost on a daily basis with news of criminal violence and violence that would "be" criminal if it wasn't for the fact that perpetrators were mentally unbalanced.  Especially so when it comes to the crime of home invasion.  Here's an example of one that occurred recently about 20 miles from my home in Lewis County, Washington state:

http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/listen-to-911-call-from-scene-of-chehalis-home/vqP7F/

The video is less than a minute long.  But it's missing something.  The video depicts the SECOND home invasion the criminal attempted on the same night - literally minutes apart from the first attempt.  During the first attempt, the criminal was confronted with an armed homeowner holding a shotgun.  The homeowner ordered the criminal to leave and the criminal complied - only to go next door to attempt a home invasion there (until that homeowner shot the criminal, sending him to Seattle Harborview Hospital in critical condition).  In the video, even the Sheriff said the homeowner acted properly.  What else could the Sheriff say?  Everybody knows that during a home invasion, seconds can be the difference between the life and death of a victim - which is no solace to potential victims who know that response times for cops are measured in minutes.

So, the 2nd Amendment let the gun genie out of its bottle in the late 18th Century. Now, in the 21st Century, very few law abiding citizens want their guns taken away unless they could be assured that the criminals they might face are similarly disarmed at the same time.  And that assurance ain't gonna happen.  Darned if you do ... darned if you don't.

Here's another home invasion story (true) written by the popular SF/F author, Joel Rosenberg, before his death in 2011:

http://slovotskys-laws.topmocks.com/tiki-index.php?page=The+Burglar%2C+the+Knife%2C+and+the+Gun

Note that besides being a novelist, Rosenberg was also a licensed firearm instructor in the state of Minnesota.

P.S.  Just a humorous aside on Rosenberg, unrelated to this topic.  I met him once at an OryCon SF/F convention.  He was moderating a panel on the "writing life" that I attended.  After the panel concluded, he called for questions.  I had one - involving my wife (whom I didn't divorce until 2000) and raised my hand.  I asked, "Writers are sometimes cursed to be married to a spouse who has absolutely no appreciation for the craft and no understanding of it.  How should a writer handle a situation like that?"

Joel responded that one of his best friends, novelist Lois McMaster-Bujold, used to have that exact problem.  Her solution?  Quote, "She divorced the son of a b***h." 

Regards,
J. Alec West

[HalOfBorg]

Question:

When the 'well regulated militias' were created, didn't wasn't it expected that people would bring their own weapons?

So they assumed people would HAVE their owns weapons?

At least this is what I remember from long ago history leasons. LONG ago.......

[jrtrek]

OK Alec,

I have a question for you. How do you counter the fact that in countries where they have gun control, the statistics confirm that there's significantly fewer homicides. With guns, access is everything. All it takes it a moment of anger/rage to kill someone.  Your argument is true that someone who is intent on killing people can make a pipe bomb, but statistically, the majority of homicides are not premeditated or planned. Just down the road from where I live, a five year old boy accidentally killed himself with a handgun. The attorney that took over my father's law practice was himself a juvenile incarcerated for shooting his own father in a moment of rage. How many people reading this post know of similar cases like this? I'll bet it's a lot more than just a few. Guns are out of control in this country, and mostly, it's because the people who own them don't respect them, don't take care of them, and are way to cavalier with how they are used. We have a culture of gun violence. You need only pick up a few first person shooter games to see that this is true. Our children are bombarded with the message that "guns are cool" - and the gun lobby - specifically the NRA, has no wish to change that because they sell more guns. This is why we have places in this country where drive by shootings are regarded as "normal".

The second amendment to the constitutions says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This clearly states that the right to bear arms is given to a "well regulated militia" - not necessarily a grant to the right of a person as the context of "people" is clearly meant as plural.

The gun lobby would have you believe this is an individual mandate. Given the amount of money they pour into congress each year they have managed to have this interpreted in a manor consistent with they way they want to sell their goods.

FYI - In Newtown, CT the gunman got off 151 rounds in less than FIVE minutes - he reloaded 5 times. If he had 10 round clips he would have had to reload 14 times. You don't think that even one life would have been saved with this little respite between clips? Your position on clip size is indefensible.
I suppose next you'll be arguing that everyone should have access to LARS.

[trekcon]

Alec,
you seem to think that the only way to protect yourself from burglars is to have a gun. I think that trying to confront the burglars yourself is a very risky stategy as they could be more ruthless than you and shoot you first. Surely deterence is better that confrontation.

Over here we have a different stategy - high quality locks on doors and windows (the Germans and swiss are excellent at making these things) and loud alarms which go off automatically. Germany is a country full of high-tech and the door locks (and doors) are of a very high quality. You would need a high power drill for at least 15 minutes to overcome these locks. Windows are secured with multiple pins and cannot be easily prized open. A lot of homes also have electronic survailance connected to loud sirens or sometimes silent alarms that automatically call the police. Good secure doors and windows are required by the insurance companies so everybody has them.

The police are usually at your property within 5-10 minutes and due to the high population density here, the chances of getting caught are quite high.
These deterents are pretty effective at keeping the criminals out and do not need guns of any kind.

In the case you mentioned, why didn't the guy at the first house hold the guy at gunpoint until the police arrived. That would have saved the second robbery of having taken place. It would have even helped if that first neighbour had called the police immediately after the robber left his property, then the police could have caught the guy red-handed trying to break in to the second house.

I have been to the USA many times and noticed how poorly secured most houses I saw are in comparison with Europe. I saw really simple locks, thin wooden doors and windows that were easy to break open by leavering them off their hinges. Surely encouraging people to spruce up the security at the point of entry would be a much better way of protecting your property and lives.

Regards

Peter

[Lost Shuttle 2]

To Halfofborg Sorry But I can't get the  Quote thing to work for me but to your question

**When the 'well regulated militias' were created, didn't wasn't it expected that people would bring their own weapons?

So they assumed people would HAVE their owns weapons?

At least this is what I remember from long ago history lessons. LONG ago..**


I can not speak for the Revolutionary War, but since last year was the 200th anniv of the war of 1812,and belonging to a local historical group and having some of the war happening within 50 miles of my home in Ogdensburg, we had a speaker in to talk about it. his speech centered on a local man  Lt. Colonel T B Benedict, At one point over 50 men showed up in a camp under  his command,  (I'm sorry but the paper I kept with the exact number  has become mixed in with the paperwork I got when I became Sect of the group when I find it I will post the number.) but the facts do not changes of these over 50 men I believe only 10 had their own weapons. the LT. had to use his own monies to order weapons for the rest. so it  may have been thought you would bring your own weapon but it was not the case. As I said not everyone here had their own rifles, I don't care what the movies say.

How long has it been that when you join a branch of the service they give you a gun, sort of shoots the owning your own gun and bring it with you to heck. when they can not depend on everyone owning a gun to bring with them.

To Peter my mothers mom had a saying "A Locked door only keeps an honest man honest, if someone is going to steal from you they will find a way in"

And I may not know the  NEW rules for guns shows but do know that two that are happening in this area are going to comply with whatever they are.

Alex since you started this thread and mention getting a gun I ask you to be honest do you really think owning a gun is going to keep you safe,that if the time comes you have to hold it on a human a real one not the one in your mind you are going to use it on but a flesh and blood person can you with ALL honestly pull the tigger. There is big differance between saying you can but will you be able to when the time comes.Will any one here who says this be able to?

I had a niece in law who would say she did not mind staying alone with her girls she knew where the nephew kept his gun I asked if she planned on using it as in shooting the person who broke in she said no all she had to do was show it and they would leave, I told her in no uncertain words DO NOT ever get the gun in that case as she would only give them a reason to hurt her to get the gun and odds are use on her and the girls then go out and use it to harm someone else.. See I think in some cases the idea of owning a gun gives some people a false sense  of safety. Also have you really thought about the after effects of ;if not shooting a human but the feeling of knowing you took a life all be it a thief but a human life.

This is one thing I hate about cops shows or even a war movie you never see that some people who take a life go thought feelings they may have thought would not come. because even if it is a nasty no good thief when you shoot and kill them you do not go out and have a cup of coffee and talk about that days sport scores. and if you do then I wonder if you should have the gun, or hope someone keeps an eye on you so when it hits you what you did you have help.

[AlecWest]

you seem to think that the only way to protect yourself from burglars is to have a gun. I think that trying to confront the burglars yourself is a very risky stategy as they could be more ruthless than you and shoot you first. Surely deterence is better that confrontation.

You seem to think that everyone can afford the "deterrence" you suggest.  Then there are other factors.  People prefer living in homes, not fortresses.  And in the current economy, most people live in apartments they can't legally alter (without a landlord's permission) even if they wanted and could afford fortress-level deterrence.  Confronting a criminal or nut is a risky thing to do.  But homeowners can be some pretty tough customers, too, if their homes and lives are threatened ... especially homeowners who are trained and well-practiced with the weapons they use to defend themselves.

The police are usually at your property within 5-10 minutes and due to the high population density here, the chances of getting caught are quite high.

The "chances" of getting caught?  Before or after they injure residents and/or damage their property?  The year I left Portland, the average response time to a break-in was 8 minutes.  A lot of things can happen in 8 minutes - especially when you consider that 911 calls aren't usually made until after the break-in has already started.

In the case you mentioned, why didn't the guy at the first house hold the guy at gunpoint until the police arrived. That would have saved the second robbery of having taken place.

Actiually, I was wondering why the first guy didn't just blow his brains out.  It would have prevented the 2nd break-in, the police could take their time coming to the scene, and the culprit's hospitalization (at taxpayer expense) would have been unnecessary - as well as a trial.

On police response times, here's another thought.  Over here, 911 operators "prioritize" calls.  And cutbacks in law enforcement funding have crippled many police departments to the point where some property crimes aren't even dispatched to.  In many cases, a non-dispatch on property crimes is "policy."  Joel Rosenberg once told me a story of an elderly homeowner in Minnesota who'd had his backyard toolshed broken into and robbed twice.  On both occasions, he actually saw the break-ins in progress and called 911.  Their response?  On both occasions, they merely took telephonic crime reports and no one was ever dispatched to his home - even though the crimes were "in progress."

Not long after, the criminals came back for a third visit.  The homeowner called 911.  And when he told them what it was - a property crime "in progress" - they started taking the same telephonic crime report they'd done twice before.  But this time, the homeoner interrupted the 911 operator in her crime questions, saying, "just a second."  He went to another area of his house and played back a sound-effects cassette - the sound of muffled gunshots.  Then he came back to the phone and said, "Never mind.  I took care of it myself," and hung up the phone.  In two minutes, 3 police cars were outside his home - and the cops actually caught the criminals.  The homeowner told the cops what he'd done - and later had to appear in court.  He was fined by the judge but, as he was leaving, told the judge he'd do it again if he continued to get non-service.

The homeowner was lucky the first two times, though.  Not all break-ins end with a toolshed.  And it's sad that 911 operators don't realize that.

To Peter my mothers mom had a saying "A Locked door only keeps an honest man honest, if someone is going to steal from you they will find a way in"

Truer words were never spoken.

Alex since you started this thread and mention getting a gun I ask you to be honest do you really think owning a gun is going to keep you safe

Honestly, I don't know.  I grew up in rural eastern Oregon.  Guns were all around me and I took my first gun-safety course through 4H when I was 12.  Since then, I've fired everything from a .22 Derringer to a .44 magnum.  In the military, I even once fired a B.A.R. (machine gun).  But, it's been a long time since I last practiced.  I've already signed up for a gun safety & care course through my local gun shop.  And afterward, I'll be practicing again at a gun range about 2 miles away from my front door.  I imagine that the more I practice, the safer I'll feel.

that if the time comes you have to hold it on a human a real one not the one in your mind you are going to use it on but a flesh and blood person can you with ALL honestly pull the tigger.

In a word, YES.  Perhaps it's a result of my training as a Vietnam vet.  But if someone confronts me with potentially violent intent, I'd cease to think of them as a flesh-and-blood human and see them as a threat.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[trekcon]

you seem to think that the only way to protect yourself from burglars is to have a gun. I think that trying to confront the burglars yourself is a very risky strategy as they could be more ruthless than you and shoot you first. Surely deterrence is better that confrontation.

You seem to think that everyone can afford the "deterrence" you suggest.  Then there are other factors.  People prefer living in homes, not fortresses.  And in the current economy, most people live in apartments they can't legally alter (without a landlord's permission) even if they wanted and could afford fortress-level deterrence.  Confronting a criminal or nut is a risky thing to do.  But homeowners can be some pretty tough customers, too, if their homes and lives are threatened ... especially homeowners who are trained and well-practiced with the weapons they use to defend themselves.

How much is a human life worth?
How much is the trauma of having shot someone worth?
Hospital bills?
Buying a gun and obtaining suitable training costs money, too!

All you need is a sturdy door and a good quality lock. Over here sturdy doors come as standard and good quality locks cost from about 50 Euro (~$65). The fittings are standardised so the lock can be exchanged yourself in a few minutes. Additional pins to secure the door on the hinge side cost just a few Euro. All windows made in the past 10 years already come with security fittings built-in. Older windows can be upgraded from about 100 Euro (~$129) each. This is enough to keep criminals out for at least 15 minutes and they would have to make a lot of noise to get past these locks. Criminals know about lock types and when they see a high quality lock, it is easier and safer for them to try elsewhere instead.

I have yet to hear of a landlord objecting to upgrading doors and windows. Often they are prepared to pay at least a part of the costs themselves. As door locks here are standardised, the lock can always be changed back when you move out of the property.

Where I live, they would have to get through two separate secure doors to get into my home. High fences make it difficult to get into my back garden, too.

Upgrading your locks and windows gives you more security and peace of mind, it does not make your home, any less of a home.

I am sorry, but I just do not agree with your opinion that guns are better or even cheaper than good locks.

If I was to hear someone trying to break in, I would call the police and then announce loudly through the door that the police are on their way and perhaps it would be wise for them to get lost.

In some of your comments, I find your lack of regard for human life and willingness to put yourself at risk, reckless to say the least.

To Peter my mothers mom had a saying "A Locked door only keeps an honest man honest, if someone is going to steal from you they will find a way in"

A good locked door will also keep a dishonest man on the other side of it. At least for a time long enough for the police to arrive.

Other simple deterrents are lights which go on when someone approaches the house. This gives the impression someone is at home even if there is not. Alternatively, leaving one light on at home (on a timer) is also an effective deterrent.

This conversation shows the different attitude's to responding to crime. In Europe, having a gun at home is not an option due to strict gun laws (which I agree with). Investing a little money on securing the points of entry is a worthwhile investment and insurance will pay for any losses if somehow the thiefs succeed in steeling from your home. The police here provide free and neutral advice on how to best secure your home.

In the USA, it appears that for people like Alec, the best strategy is to save money on good locks and instead have an arsenal of guns so you can blow the brains out of anyone who is trying to break-in to your home. This of course will only work if someone, trained to use a gun, is home at the time of the break-in.

I know which method I prefer.

Regards

Peter