Florida gun deaths suspect named as Shawn Tyson

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by descartes90

 

Property crime?

Many of these incidents are attempted rapes, assaults, and attempted murders that were stopped by the victim having the gun.

I don't think you've thought this issue through.

edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

like i said, if it were true guns really stopped murder (im sure they do sometimes, but the fact is, they cause more violence than they prevent), Canada and England's murder rates would top America's.

As for rape and assault, still, the figures are generally lower (actually Canada does have a higher reported rape rate, but I think this has to do with the fact that violence against women is taken more seriously there, not because there is actually more rape).

reply to post by descartes90


Depends on the offense, but I won't rule anything out.

Definitely in self-defense.

In the event of a rape or egregious assault on anyone helpless in my family, I might do it for revenge. I would justify it as eliminating the threat of a repeat offense, but I won't lie and say it wouldn't be enjoyable. If you've read any of my other posts on ATS, you will know I am a fan of "natural consequences" and I make that readily known. Since most crimes are committed by acquaintances, it is very unlikely any of my acquaintances would try anything on a loved one of mine, the consequences are too great.

In fact, I tell my wife that she needs to be more aware of her surroundings, not for her own safety, but for the safety of humanity as a whole, because if she were abducted or killed, I'm not sure I would stop at getting the guilty party. I might just dedicate my life to some much-needed housecleaning until I am either caught or killed.

reply to post by descartes90


Have you by chance ever checked out this site? Lots of stories of where the criminal was on the receiving end of their own ill will.

TheArmedCitizen

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by descartes90

 

If you read the amendment, there really is not much there to interpret.

Pretty straight forward.

Well what constitutes 'arms'? "Arms" doesn't just mean guns, it would include everything from nuclear bombs to pepper spray.

reply to post by descartes90


Until the average criminal starts running around with nuclear bombs, we do not have much to worry about then.

Reaching a little bit now.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by descartes90

 

Until the average criminal starts running around with nuclear bombs, we do not have much to worry about then.

Reaching a little bit now.

You missed my point, I was saying arms as a term doesn't JUST refer to guns. If it did refer only to firearms, they would have written 'right to bear guns'. It is vague for a reason.

Originally posted by descartes90


well if they were just stealing stuff, i would probably go for the pepper spray. If they were gonna threaten my wife or daughter (I have neither yet), I would use the gun, but I wouldn't shoot it unless they pulled out one as well.

off topic:

the 90 in your name.
the year you were born?
it would explain a lot.

on topic:
i hope that in the even that you are burglarized you have all the time in the world to make those assessments.
as would i. i'm in the same position as yourself, without wife and kids, but i know how much i love those that are closest to me and i can only imaging that the love i would have for a human that is half me would be exponentially more so. i'm glad you're so sure of how you would respond under such circumstances. go get 'em with that pepper spray.

reply to post by descartes90


You are not considering the vocabulary of the times when that was written.

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by descartes90

 

Until the average criminal starts running around with nuclear bombs, we do not have much to worry about then.

Reaching a little bit now.

You missed my point, I was saying arms as a term doesn't JUST refer to guns. If it did refer only to firearms, they would have written 'right to bear guns'. It is vague for a reason.

arms does mean guns.
now you're just making stuff up.

Originally posted by slowisfast

Originally posted by descartes90


well if they were just stealing stuff, i would probably go for the pepper spray. If they were gonna threaten my wife or daughter (I have neither yet), I would use the gun, but I wouldn't shoot it unless they pulled out one as well.

off topic:

the 90 in your name.
the year you were born?
it would explain a lot.

on topic:
i hope that in the even that you are burglarized you have all the time in the world to make those assessments.
as would i. i'm in the same position as yourself, without wife and kids, but i know how much i love those that are closest to me and i can only imaging that the love i would have for a human that is half me would be exponentially more so. i'm glad you're so sure of how you would respond under such circumstances. go get 'em with that pepper spray.

did you read what i said? i said, if they pulled a gun at me, i would pull a gun back and fire. but if I just caught them stealing my TV, I would not make myself their executioner. I don't see how murdering someone for stealing your STUFF proves that you love your family.

and yes i am 21 years old, but it has no bearing on my opinion.

Originally posted by slowisfast

arms does mean guns.
now you're just making stuff up.

No. It is shorthand for 'armaments', a collective term for all weapons. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by descartes90

did you read what i said? i said, if they pulled a gun at me, i would pull a gun back and fire. but if I just caught them stealing my TV, I would not make myself their executioner. I don't see how murdering someone for stealing your STUFF proves that you love your family.

and yes i am 21 years old, but it has no bearing on my opinion.

Then maybe one in the leg would suffice.




I am covered.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by descartes90

did you read what i said? i said, if they pulled a gun at me, i would pull a gun back and fire. but if I just caught them stealing my TV, I would not make myself their executioner. I don't see how murdering someone for stealing your STUFF proves that you love your family.

and yes i am 21 years old, but it has no bearing on my opinion.

Then maybe one in the leg would suffice.

I still think that's too much just for taking somebody's TV.

The truth is, Americans love guns not because they love their families, which is what they like to say, or love justice, it's because they love violence when they have a good excuse to do so.

reply to post by descartes90


A couple of important facts.

#1 Pepper spray is ineffective. It is not disabling, nor is it a deterrent. I have been sprayed with several brands, and even without anger, adrenalin, or drugs, it was still ineffective. If I had the help of rage or drugs, the pepperspray would not even be noticeable.

#2 Never pull out your gun unless you intend to shoot somebody. It escalates the situation faster than you can imagine. Thinking you will pull it and not fire it is a surefire way to die.

#3 Never wait to see their gun, because it is far too late at that point. Things are not like the movies. If you see their gun, you are already helpless. Pull yours first, and fire yours first.

If you are in your home, and they are in your home, it is no longer an issue of your TV set, it is now survival of the fittest. They do not want to go to jail, so the minute they see you, it is now a life or death situation for both of you. Do not let some idealistic fiction rule your actions. Let survival instincts rule your actions instead!

Originally posted by descartes90



I still think that's too much just for taking somebody's TV.

The truth is, Americans love guns not because they love their families, which is what they like to say, or love justice, it's because they love violence when they have a good excuse to do so.

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I took an oath to never point a weapon at another citizen and I still stand behind that. However, there is a line to be drawn and entering my house un-welcomed is about the only way I will point and fire a weapon at another citizen. My home is my castle and the only thing and place I can feel safe and I intend to keep it that way. My guns are the best insurance policy I have ever purchased. I do not enjoy violence nor do I like it, but be warned, I will use it if I or my family are violated.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by descartes90

 

A couple of important facts.

#1 Pepper spray is ineffective. It is not disabling, nor is it a deterrent. I have been sprayed with several brands, and even without anger, adrenalin, or drugs, it was still ineffective. If I had the help of rage or drugs, the pepperspray would not even be noticeable.

#2 Never pull out your gun unless you intend to shoot somebody. It escalates the situation faster than you can imagine. Thinking you will pull it and not fire it is a surefire way to die.

#3 Never wait to see their gun, because it is far too late at that point. Things are not like the movies. If you see their gun, you are already helpless. Pull yours first, and fire yours first.

If you are in your home, and they are in your home, it is no longer an issue of your TV set, it is now survival of the fittest. They do not want to go to jail, so the minute they see you, it is now a life or death situation for both of you. Do not let some idealistic fiction rule your actions. Let survival instincts rule your actions instead!

That's amazing it didn't work on you!!! Maybe you just have some kind of super-human immunity to it?

Not to mention - guns aren't always effective in stopping an attacker either. If he/she is on PCP, they might not even notice they were shot!

Originally posted by descartes90

Originally posted by slowisfast

Originally posted by descartes90


well if they were just stealing stuff, i would probably go for the pepper spray. If they were gonna threaten my wife or daughter (I have neither yet), I would use the gun, but I wouldn't shoot it unless they pulled out one as well.

off topic:

the 90 in your name.
the year you were born?
it would explain a lot.

on topic:
i hope that in the even that you are burglarized you have all the time in the world to make those assessments.
as would i. i'm in the same position as yourself, without wife and kids, but i know how much i love those that are closest to me and i can only imaging that the love i would have for a human that is half me would be exponentially more so. i'm glad you're so sure of how you would respond under such circumstances. go get 'em with that pepper spray.

did you read what i said? i said, if they pulled a gun at me, i would pull a gun back and fire. but if I just caught them stealing my TV, I would not make myself their executioner. I don't see how murdering someone for stealing your STUFF proves that you love your family.

and yes i am 21 years old, but it has no bearing on my opinion.

edit on 18-4-2011 by descartes90 because: .

and like i said, i hope you have the time to make an assessment about what it is that the intruder really wants. i'm not advocating out right shooting someone but if i heard someone break in downstairs it's not my pepper spray i'm bringing down with me in the dark.

you'll be surprised at how your world view will change as you get older. i'm not condemning your for being 21, it's just data that helps me to understand where you're coming from. I'm 31, which really isn't that far away for you, but i'm a far cry from where i was ten years ago. i use to be, very much, a proponent of gun control laws in this country as well as a believer that government could regulate the lives of Americans for the better. This is proving to not be the case. a lot of things changed that. living all over the US the last decade. Lots of travel. Growing up. As of the 2000 census roughly 6 percent of the population were convicted felons(all felonies including gun crimes) which means 94 percent of Americans are living their lives trying to make something of our time here. In all honestly, that's a great number to me. I think we should start holding individuals accountable and not inanimate objects. obviously the vast majority of us know right from wrong(when it comes to violent crime) and can be responsible.

Originally posted by descartes90


Not to mention - guns aren't always effective in stopping an attacker either. If he/she is on PCP, they might not even notice they were shot!

They will if three shots are placed center mass or one between the eyes.

reply to post by descartes90


The Mongols conquered pillaged and raped their way across Asia and parts of Europe with nothing but bows, arrows, swords and horses.

According to William Bonner and Addison Wiggin, "It has been estimated that his campaigns killed as many as 40 million people based on census data of the times."

Source
Ol' Ghengis didn't need no Amurcan justice to impart those deaths.

Here's an interesting tidbit about a European sovereignty we know as Switzerland:

The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

In Switzerland military service is compulsory and those that are not worthy because of age need to remain proficient with their firearms.

Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s.

Funny, the way some people think, shouldn't Zurich's streets be flowing with blood and littered with spent shell casings??

Like a previous poster said, law abiding citizens in the US are not the ones committing gun crime. Criminals by nature do not obey any laws, so how would a permanent gun ban law affect them? It wouldn't. A gun ban would only make it so that the citizenry would be easier to oppress.

Source

Originally posted by slowisfast


and like i said, i hope you have the time to make an assessment about what it is that the intruder really wants. i'm not advocating out right shooting someone but if i heard someone break in downstairs it's not my pepper spray i'm bringing down with me in the dark.

you'll be surprised at how your world view will change as you get older. i'm not condemning your for being 21, it's just data that helps me to understand where you're coming from. I'm 31, which really isn't that far away for you, but i'm a far cry from where i was ten years ago. i use to be, very much, a proponent of gun control laws in this country as well as a believer that government could regulate the lives of Americans for the better. This is proving to not be the case. a lot of things changed that. living all over the US the last decade. Lots of travel. Growing up. As of the 2000 census roughly 6 percent of the population were convicted felons(all felonies including gun crimes) which means 94 percent of Americans are living their lives trying to make something of our time here. In all honestly, that's a great number to me. I think we should start holding individuals accountable and not inanimate objects. obviously the vast majority of us know right from wrong(when it comes to violent crime) and can be responsible.

i totally get where you are coming from. i am definitely anti-government as well.

as for holding individuals accountable - well my beliefs are, that you can't explain human behavior by Good/Evil and by singular Free Will. Human beings are colonial, not islands. There are bad/violent people in every society yes, but I think that they are largely influenced by the feelings of the society as a whole. The society that believes in an eye for an eye, in a way, creates the serial killers. Every feeling of hate we have, even the most justified hates, makes our society a little bit darker. Plus there is the whole case of mental illness, imo, you HAVE to be crazy to pull off a Columbine. Normal people do not go out and shoot up entire schools out of anger over bullying, though some might fantasize about such things.

As for "assessment", you're right, I probably wouldn't think it over much. My only concern would be that me and my family were safe. But I would think it over PRIOR to any possible attack. Instead of just buying guns and swearing I will f***king KILL anyone who breaks in, I will do my research on non-lethal weapons. I love my family very much, more than anything, but I also love my fellow man, and I am not going to rob a mother of her son because he did the stupid action of breaking into my house, if I don't have to.