Should the bobby's pack heaters?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 07 2003,07:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you gave every one of your beat cops access to half that armory, you would start to take back your streets. Yes, it sounds a little too Wild West for European sensibilities, but at some point you have to ask yourselves whether you would rather have crooks with guns, or cops with bigger guns than the criminals.<span id='postcolor'>

The question you should ask yourself is if there is a real crime problem or not. Is it probable that you will be a victim of violent crime?

When you arm yourself for self protection, it means that you are afraid. People that are afraid should not have guns. It is also an indicator that something is wrong in the society since its citizens don't feel they are safe without having weapons around. There will always be homicidal maniacs, but they are a very small percentage of the population and the probability of you meeting Hanibal Lecter is very small. So those that remain a threat would then be the other type of criminals. whose priority is not killing you, but getting your money. Now answer me this: would you rather you got robbed or that you killed another human being?

I can exemplify. In the US most banks have armed security guards. In Sweden they don't have any guards, much less armed ones. So what is the difference then? We have bank robberies and you have them too. The difference is that nobody gets killed here. The robbers come wave their guns and get the money. Sure it's a loss, but nobody gets killed. And they almost always get caught due to good police work. When the police gets them they don't get into fancy fire fights, normally the criminals in question just surrender. As absurd as it sounds but there is such a thing as culture among criminals. The robbers get a couple of months in a very good jail and have generally good living standards (including getting weekends off - i'm not kidding). In the worst case they continue with their criminal activity after they get out. But still, nobody gets hurt, which is the most important thing.

As for the police, I think that they can keep their guns. There are still that small percentage of homicidal maniacs and criminals without any respect for life. For those rare situations guns are warrented.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question you should ask yourself is if there is a real crime problem or not. Is it probable that you will be a victim of violent crime? <span id='postcolor'>

There is a difference between being fearful and recognizing the risks inherent in today's society and then taking steps to protect yourself. Yes, the odds are small, but the point is that if, God forbid, the situation does occur, you will be prepared to handle it effectively. We both provide for the protection of individuals, except that you place an inordinate amount of faith in government, and I believe that the individual should be capable of protecting him/herself.

I don't know what it's like in Sweden, I've never been there- maybe you guys have yourself a regular socialist's paradise where the government and its sub-entities function exactly the way they should all the time. But in other countries it is just plain naive to trust to an ideologically pure but impractical idea like the one you set forth here:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is also an indicator that something is wrong in the society since its citizens don't feel they are safe without having weapons around.<span id='postcolor'>

This is a very honorable concept, and I'm sure the other philosophers in your ivory tower absolutely love it, but it is an entirely different situation when you are being mugged. Sometimes you have to lay aside the ideology for a while and realize that a police force armed with wooden sticks is not going to cut it. Is there something wrong with a society where law abiding citizens feel the need to be armed? Maybe, but I assure you that less old ladies will be getting mugged if the thugs have to consider if Grandma has a Saturday Night Special in her purse.

And that's what it comes down to, a very basic difference in how we view the individual's role. You see it as better that the individual takes the hit now and trusts his government to take care of things later; I believe that the individual should have the right to not put up with the people trying to fuck him over. I believe that given the proper instruction most individuals can be trusted with a registered firearm.

Because when you start saying that the government can take care of everything, you are surrendering your basic individual sanctity, and by proxy making the statement that you, yourself, are not capable of handling your own affairs.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 07 2003,09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe, but I assure you that less old ladies will be getting mugged if the thugs have to consider if Grandma has a Saturday Night Special in her purse.<span id='postcolor'>

You only step up the level of violence with that. If Mr. Criminal knows that Grandma has a Saturday Night Special in her purse he will bring a Shotgun. If Grandma has a tank, he will bring a nuclear weapon. An arms race between criminals and other citizens is not a solution. So I think it is better to step down it. Sure you will get robbed, and that's nasty, but you won't get killed. A robber won't kill you if there is no danger to him- he wants your money not your life.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Because when you start saying that the government can take care of everything, you are surrendering your basic individual sanctity, and by proxy making the statement that you, yourself, are not capable of handling your own affairs.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying that I want the government to take care of everything. As a matter of fact laws on self defense suck big time in Sweden - you are basically not allowed to defend yourself. It is however a big difference between hitting somebody and carrying around a weapons arsenal. My idea is to have as little weapons (for self defense) as possible but have the right to defend yourself.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Thrust, parry, thrust  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You only step up the level of violence with that. If Mr. Criminal knows that Grandma has a Saturday Night Special in her purse he will bring a Shotgun. If Grandma has a tank, he will bring a nuclear weapon. An arms race between criminals and other citizens is not a solution. So I think it is better to step down it. Sure you will get robbed, and that's nasty, but you won't get killed. A robber won't kill you if there is no danger to him- he wants your money not your life.

<span id='postcolor'>

At this point you hit a logical speedbump. The criminals only pick someone like Grandma because she is supposedly an easy target. However, the criminals are faced with a cost/benefit ratio when they have to take into account Granny's gun. Is it really worth it to spring for the cost of a shotgun when originally all you needed to take down Granny was a baseball bat (cricket mallet if you prefer  or less ). And for what reward? Whatever she has in her purse? No, your arms-race argument simply doesn't apply when the monetary stakes are as low as they are in street muggings. However, my core point is that an individual that is faced with the event of being robbed, has a right to defend himself and his possessions. I am not overly concerned with the entry of deadly force into the scenario, because if the law-abiding citizen has the gun, then chances are that the blood that ends up on the wall will have belonged to someone who could have used a pint or two less anyways.

I'm not going to try and preach to you about the necessity of fighting evil like FSPilot might. I know you're a veteran and have been in more life/death situations than I have. But I am not as convinced as you are that the preservation of human life (especially criminal human life) should be the overriding objective in the scenarios we are talking about here. And if it takes a few examples being made to start convincing criminals that mugging and thugging arent the best ways to make a living, then so be it. I have met criminals before, and the one thing that can be seen as an overriding characteristic is that they have a weakness of taking the easy way out. They may see a criminal life as being the easiest way to make money- enter the possibility of becoming a statistic, and suddenly it doesnt seem so easy. Certainly the worst case scenario of spending a few years in a taxpayer funded hostel is not a sufficient deterrent.

The common criminal isn't like you Denoir. You are a soldier, and when you think about violent situations, your automatic response is to bring sufficient force to bear to accomplish your objective. Most criminals either don't have the resources or the mindset of a soldier. They look for the easy target, the low risk, and oftentimes they are armed with nothing more than a lead pipe or a switchblade. Some are different, and heavily armed, but as you say, they are in the minority, and they would be going after targets that the individual wouldn't be feeling obligated to protect (like a bank, etc.).

That's where arming your police come into play. When the criminal has to take into account that within 10 minutes of their entry into a bank, there will be at least one firearm outside the bank's doors aimed at them, instead of not having any law officers armed with deadly force on the scene for hours, then you immediately deter an entire class of criminals who are accustomed to bluffing their way in and out of situations because there has never been anyone to call their bluff. Yes, I admit, it won't solve your crime problem completely, b/c there will still be your hard cases out there; still, logic dictates that it's better to have just the hard cases than the hard cases and common criminals.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 07 2003,106)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At this point you hit a logical speedbump. The criminals only pick someone like Grandma because she is supposedly an easy target. However, the criminals are faced with a cost/benefit ratio when they have to take into account Granny's gun. Is it really worth it to spring for the cost of a shotgun when originally all you needed to take down Granny was a baseball bat (cricket mallet if you prefer  or less ).<span id='postcolor'>

I am very convinced that you won't reduce the number of criminals by making it more hazardous for them doing their activities. They adapt to the situation. The solution that you are advocating is not a real one. You are trying to treat/counter act the symptoms and not the disease. People don't become criminals because it is an intriguing career choice. They follow that path most often as a result of their social situation. Until you fix that there will be no end to it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I am not as convinced as you are that the preservation of human life (especially criminal human life) should be the overriding objective in the scenarios we are talking about here. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I think there is the difference between you and me. I consider every human life more important then material possesions, including a criminal's life. Even more, I think it is just as valuable as your or mine. The value of a human life is constant and not dependent on what you do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's where arming your police come into play. When the criminal has to take into account that within 10 minutes of their entry into a bank, there will be at least one firearm outside the bank's doors aimed at them, instead of not having any law officers armed with deadly force on the scene for hours, then you immediately deter an entire class of criminals who are accustomed to bluffing their way in and out of situations because there has never been anyone to call their bluff. Yes, I admit, it won't solve your crime problem completely, b/c there will still be your hard cases out there; still, logic dictates that it's better to have just the hard cases than the hard cases and common criminals.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I agree that we should make it as difficult as possible for criminals to pursue their activities. As I said earlier, I think that the police should be armed.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Itchy @ Jan. 06 2003,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heh, its cool.

To go back to your point (which is a teeny bit off-topic), most rural areas with horses have a vet nearby. I'm assuming you don't live in the UK, its just a tiny little island. If you do, well, I was a country boy once upon a time, so I think I can get away with this. <span id='postcolor'>

Actually I am British and damn proud of it. Well, I call myself English but I got blood from all the UK.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that shotguns are warranted on the basis that sometimes a situation arises where the most humane thing to do is to kill the horse. A handgun just doesn't cut it and you don't want to create a market for such things.

A shotgun benig the best alternative.

And where r u from?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,02:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,014)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The matter of police having guns does not affect house breaking surely?<span id='postcolor'>

No,...you mis-understand what I was saying. I was talking about the rights of the law abiding citizens to keep a gun in their home in that part of my post. (slightly off-topic)

If a criminal knows the occupants of a house are un-armed...he will certainly be less apprehensive about commiting a home invasion, or a burglary.

On the other hand...If he knows there is the possibility of being shot,...he will be less bold about it.<span id='postcolor'>

How many ppl u ever shoot while asleep? Or not in the house?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 07 2003,10:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At this point you hit a logical speedbump. The criminals only pick someone like Grandma because she is supposedly an easy target. However, the criminals are faced with a cost/benefit ratio when they have to take into account Granny's gun. Is it really worth it to spring for the cost of a shotgun when originally all you needed to take down Granny was a baseball bat (cricket mallet if you prefer  or less ). And for what reward? Whatever she has in her purse? No, your arms-race argument simply doesn't apply when the monetary stakes are as low as they are in street muggings. However, my core point is that an individual that is faced with the event of being robbed, has a right to defend himself and his possessions. I am not overly concerned with the entry of deadly force into the scenario, because if the law-abiding citizen has the gun, then chances are that the blood that ends up on the wall will have belonged to someone who could have used a pint or two less anyways.<span id='postcolor'>

Your reasoning also hits a speedbump as it goes. Arming granny will enable her to shoot criminals, but how does this affect the behaviour of criminals? It does not deter them or make them get bigger guns themselves, but makes them more violent. The easiest way to rob a granny with a gun in her purse is to walk over to her, when she is unsuspecting, and beat the shit out of ole granny before she even thinks about going for her gun. Instead of a robbed granny you get a beat up and robbed granny and possibly a dead granny. You also get a criminal with a stolen firearm in addition to granny's pension.

In a gun-carrying society criminals use the element of surprise and excessive force to overcome any armament carried by the law-abiding citizens. After all, we cannot just walk around aiming guns at each other, just in case the person going past you in the street is a mugger or can we (should we)?

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you arm yourself for self protection, it means that you are afraid. People that are afraid should not have guns.<span id='postcolor'>

This statement is absolutely incorrect,

Arming yourself for protection means taking responsibility for the safety of yourself, your family, and your property.

Calling that "fear", is like calling pacifism "cowardice"

The police (armed or not) can not protect you from criminals...To do so, there would have to be an officer on every street, at all times.

At best, they can hopefully apprehend the scum, after the crime has been commited.

Life is choices...you can choose to be a pacifist, you can choose to be a victim, and you can choose to let someone else take responsibility for your protection.

Or you can choose to take that responsibility on yourself.

You can also choose to be a criminal, or choose to be a law abiding citizen.

The choice to be a criminal is less tempting when you know that you may be risking your life in doing so.

If you choose to endanger the life of my wife, my children, myself, or any other innocent person, or to invade the domain of my home...Then you have accepted the fact that you may end up dead.

This does not mean that I would shoot someone for stealing my car (unless they were armed, and a direct threat to the safety of myself, or someone else while doing it)...It does not mean I would shoot someone for ANYTHING that could not be percieved as a direct threat to life and limb of me, or another person.

It also does not mean that I am afraid of those things ever happening to me...In fact, I am pretty sure they never will.

But I am prepared to react, and take responsibility should the unlikely event arise.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You only step up the level of violence with that. If Mr. Criminal knows that Grandma has a Saturday Night Special in her purse he will bring a Shotgun. <span id='postcolor'>

I have never been to Your country, so I do not know what it is like there...and I do not know what the collective mentality of the criminals there is like.

But in America,...criminals for the most part, seek out the weak, and presumably defenseless.

And they are emboldened to get violent when they think the victim can not fight back.

They would not simply "bring a bigger gun"...they would find an easier target.

And there is absolutely no "honor amoung thugs"

Putting the topic of muggings, and robbery completely aside...What about rape?

Do you feel that a woman should have the power to possibly stop it from happening, or should she call the police after the bad guy has finished up?

It is a sad state of affairs, but those crimes DO happen.

You might also be interested to know that it is a statistical FACT that the majority of violent crimes commited in the U.S. happen in major cities of the states that have the strictest regulations, and in a few cases total bans on private firearms ownership.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Why am I always away when people start debating?  

First off let me say that I agree with everything that Tex has said in this thread so far.

Tex:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, the criminals are faced with a cost/benefit ratio when they have to take into account Granny's gun. Is it really worth it to spring for the cost of a shotgun<span id='postcolor'>

Usually pistols will cost more than a pump action shotgun. Money isn't really the issue here, it's concealability. Ever tried hiding a shotgun under a spring jacket? As for Denoir's "arms race" theory, it's just that. Besides, tanks aren't concealable and thermonuclear devices are hard to come by. I remember reading some FBI stats that showed %75 of gun crime is committed with hand guns. In a society where both the police and civilians alike are armed, criminals try to avoid human contact when doing thier business. Or if their job requires contact, they pick out the weak to take advantage of.

Denoir:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A robber won't kill you if there is no danger to him- he wants your money not your life.<span id='postcolor'>

In theory yes, in practice, no. You can't make a blanket statement about all criminals, some are demented while others are just desperate. Some criminals will just kill you outright because it is more convienient to do so. People like that are not uncommon. Even 'regular' criminals can snap under pressure and start shooting.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now answer me this: would you rather you got robbed or that you killed another human being?

<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, as with other socialists you are putting the onus on the law abiding citizen. You should be asking criminals: "Would you be willing to kill someone just to get their money, or risk dying trying to rob them?" If the criminal dies or is wounded doing something he knows is wrong, I have no sympathy for them.

Remember, shooting someone doesn't mean killing them. Even if you pull a gun it doesn't mean that you have to shoot someone.

As for guns in general I said before: I would rather have something and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Tyler

EDIT:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Life is choices...you can choose to be a pacifist, you can choose to be a victim, and you can choose to let someone else take responsibility for your protection.

Or you can choose to take that responsibility on yourself.

You can also choose to be a criminal, or choose to be a law abiding citizen.<span id='postcolor'>

Well put Medic.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,10:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I think there is the difference between you and me. I consider every human life more important then material possesions, including a criminal's life. Even more, I think it is just as valuable as your or mine. The value of a human life is constant and not dependent on what you do.<span id='postcolor'>

The problem is, that the only life a typical street thug sees as more important than aquiring the money for his next fix of whatever drug he is addicted to....is his own life.

People are killed for the money in their wallet...Hell, thug assed kids kill each other over graffiti spraypainted on some wall.

Do you think they grow up to be "honorable" criminals?

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 07 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many ppl u ever shoot while asleep? Or not in the house?<span id='postcolor'>

Im not sure I understand your question about sleeping....But if what you mean to ask is

"How many people are awakened by a noise in their hose to find an intruder?"....The answer would be: It happens quite often...more than you might think.

And I refered to "home invasion robberies"...That is a trend that has increased over the last decade.

It is when someone "invades" your home...meaning they know you are at home, and often times awake.

I responded to such a call last year where a couple was barged in upon, robbed, tied up, and doused with gasoline.

The thugs chickened out of lighting them up thankfully.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,11:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you arm yourself for self protection, it means that you are afraid. People that are afraid should not have guns.<span id='postcolor'>

This statement is absolutely incorrect,

Arming yourself for protection means taking responsibility for the safety of yourself, your family, and your property.

Calling that "fear", is like calling pacifism "cowardice"<span id='postcolor'>

The difference between between rationally looking out for your self and hysterical fear lies in the reality of the situation. My point is this: If the society is so dangerous that you need to have a weapon to survive then something is fucked with that society. If there isn't a necessity for having a weapon (i.e the probability of you being a vicitm of a violent crime is small) then it is hystery induced fear. And then it is a very bad idea having a weapon since people will kill others that they perceive as a threat regardless if the threat is real or not. Hysterical people shouldn't have weapons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Life is choices...you can choose to be a pacifist, you can choose to be a victim, and you can choose to let someone else take responsibility for your protection.

Or you can choose to take that responsibility on yourself.

You can also choose to be a criminal, or choose to be a law abiding citizen.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's trivializing the issue. People become criminals mostly because of a bad social situation. Yes, they do have a choice but it is much harder for them. Somebody growing up in a ghetto has very little chance of becoming say a succesful business man. In that environment there are many criminals that influence the kids that grow up there and so on. That's the problem. Social issues. Not who can shoot who first. Christ! This isn't the middle ages or the wild west. We're supposed to live in a civilized society now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, as with other socialists you are putting the onus on the law abiding citizen. You should be asking criminals: "Would you be willing to kill someone just to get their money, or risk dying trying to rob them?" If the criminal dies or is wounded doing something he knows is wrong, I have no sympathy for them.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not a socialist. I would rather get shot then vote for the social democrats. I'm liberal. A humanitarin view on things have nothing to do with socialism. That's besides the point though. As I said, you won't reduce the number of criminals by making it more hazardous for them. They will adapt - get better weapons, find weaker prey. It is treating the symptoms, not the problem. Until you resolve the social issues, you won't help the situation. Arming the citizens will only result in dead people on both sides, which I see hardly as an improvement of the situation.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,11:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's trivializing the issue. People become criminals mostly because of a bad social situation. Yes, they do have a choice but it is much harder for them. Somebody growing up in a ghetto has very little chance of becoming say a succesful business man. In that environment there are many criminals that influence the kids that grow up there and so on. That's the problem. Social issues. Not who can shoot who first. Christ! This isn't the middle ages or the wild west. We're supposed to live in a civilized society now.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, thats true...many people DO become criminals because of bad social situations.

People also become criminals because they are addicted to drugs, and people become criminals for the "thrill" of it.

WHY someone became a violent criminal, does not make his life worth any more than his victim's life...and does not give him any more rights than me.

If he chooses to become a violent threat to another human being, and happens to get shot in the process...BOO FREAKING HOO.

(NOTE that in all of my posts here, I am only talking about violent criminals, who would choose to harm another person in the act of a crime.

You are never justified to use deadly force if there is no threat to the life and limb of another person.)

And on to social issues.

My line of work takes me into the "ghetto" on a regular basis my friend...and the particular "ghetto" area in the county where I live actually had the dubious title of "Crack Capitol of the U.S.A." until about six years ago, it also once held the title of "AIDS Capitol of Florida".

Trust me,....more people than you would believe are quite happy with their "criminal" lifestyle.

There were two places in the "hood" that offered "daily pay, for daily work"...usually it was some form of construction work, and the normal rate was $10.00 per hour cash (all you have to do is show up, and you get $10.00 an hour for a days work)....One of the places had to relocate, because they couldn't get any workers to show up, and the other place is still there...but they also dont get many workers (they have however, been robbed twice)

Now,...on any given day, you can drive through the "hood", and see literally hundreds, of perfectly fit, able bodied young men (who could be out making $10.00 per hour elsewhere) walking the streets, loitering, playing dominoes under the big oak at the corner of 13th St. and Avenue L, and,...yes, even selling drugs on street corners.

What do these able bodied young men do to make money you may ask?....Well, I will let you figure that out for yourself.

Some people in the "hood" are good, and decent folks, who just cant get a good break.

But there are also many people there who are only there because they are lazy, plain and simple.

Like I said,...things may be different in your country.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were two places in the "hood" that offered "daily pay, for daily work"...usually it was some form of construction work, and the normal rate was $10.00 per hour cash (all you have to do is show up, and you get $10.00 an hour for a days work)....One of the places had to relocate, because they couldn't get any workers to show up, and the other place is still there...but they also dont get many workers (they have however, been robbed twice)

Now,...on any given day, you can drive through the "hood", and see literally hundreds, of perfectly fit, able bodied young men (who could be out making $10.00 per hour elsewhere) walking the streets, loitering, playing dominoes under the big oak at the corner of 13th St. and Avenue L, and,...yes, even selling drugs on street corners.

What do these able bodied young men do to make money you may ask?....Well, I will let you figure that out for yourself.

Some people in the "hood" are good, and decent folks, who just cant get a good break.

But there are also many people there who are only there because they are lazy, plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but the reason for that is the social environment. People are not born corrupted. They can either be stimulated or corrupted depending on the environment they grow up with.

Solve your social issues and you will solve your crime problem. That's where the focus has to be, not by trying to stop them after they have become socially disfunctional.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Solve your social issues<span id='postcolor'>

What planet are you on, Mister Moderator?

[Itchy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 07 2003,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, all I'm saying is that shotguns are warranted on the basis that sometimes a situation arises where the most humane thing to do is to kill the horse. A handgun just doesn't cut it and you don't want to create a market for such things.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, we got way off point. The man who shot the two burgulars had an unlicensed, pump-action shotgun. That was all I said, but it got lost in the quote / counter-quote.

I'm in Edinburgh myself.

And I don't have time to keep up with this thread (actually trying to get some work done), but I go with denoir's point of view. Why should I have a gun, or society be armed? And I'm one of lifes brighter pennies. I wouldn't want some of my neighbours having guns. I have chosen to live in a civilsed society, and part of that choice is that I give up defending my property, and allow a paid police force to do the work for me.

I'm happy with the current status quo in the UK, where the police have arms available if they are needed. The debabte should be "Should the UK police be armed as standard?" to which I think no.

[Itchy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 07 2003,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Solve your social issues<span id='postcolor'>

What planet are you on, Mister Moderator?  <span id='postcolor'>

Heh, he is right though. As far as governments go, I have the most respect for Scandinavia and Holland for pragmatic ruling which looks out for society. Most countries could learn from them.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 07 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Solve your social issues<span id='postcolor'>

What planet are you on, Mister Moderator?  <span id='postcolor'>

No, I'm perfectly aware that it isn't easy and that it isn't even possible fully to do that. I'm only saying that the solution "if we have guns we'll be safe" is not a good long term solution.

People often glorify freedom. What they often fail to mention is that freedom requires a good starting point, otherwise it is pointless. Freedom is only as good as the social limitations allow it to be.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm only saying that the solution "if we have guns we'll be safe" is a good long term solution.<span id='postcolor'>

Surely you meant it isn't a good long-term solution?

[DarkLight 0]

Where i live every cop carries a gun, isn't that normal?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,11:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 07 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many ppl u ever shoot while asleep? Or not in the house?<span id='postcolor'>

Im not sure I understand your question about sleeping....But if what you mean to ask is

"How many people are awakened by a noise in their hose to find an intruder?"....The answer would be: It happens quite often...more than you might think.

And I refered to "home invasion robberies"...That is a trend that has increased over the last decade.

It is when someone "invades" your home...meaning they know you are at home, and often times awake.

I responded to such a call last year where a couple was barged in upon, robbed, tied up, and doused with gasoline.

The thugs chickened out of lighting them up thankfully.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't mention where this happened or whether or not the robbers had firearms.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 07 2003,17:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where i live every cop carries a gun, isn't that normal?<span id='postcolor'>

lol u say that and just look at your sig!

In Britain our police aren't armed in general. There are armed response units but the police have never had the overwhelming need to carry guns. If they sort this recent spate of gun related crimes they won't need them. But then we'll probably never see our police force do anything desicive due to all the lentil munching liberals, useless govt. and all the rules and restrictions that imposed upon a police officer who might be carrying out ground level policing.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I'm one of lifes brighter pennies. I wouldn't want some of my neighbours having guns. I have chosen to live in a civilsed society, and part of that choice is that I give up defending my property, and allow a paid police force to do the work for me.<span id='postcolor'>

So you are saying that people that own guns and countries that allow it are somehow 'uncivilised'?

If you want to hide in your house and dial 911 while criminals sweep through it, fine by me. Be like all the other sheep and trust someone else to protect you. I look after me and mine and I would never count on the police to be there when I most needed them because they never are.

I'll quote from the article that I posted earlier:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding. <span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, you are right when you say that it is the social situations that cause crime. But the social situations in North America are far different from those in Sweden. Your government can probably manage a smaller population than say, the U.S. with almost 300 million people. Crime exists largely in the urban areas of any country and the U.S. has many more urban areas that are much larger than those in Sweden. As madmedic was saying, some people just choose thier lifestyle. In Canada we give free University to native people, however many of them choose not to go. They would rather stay on the reservation in relative poverty. Natives make up only %3 of our population but account for %25 of our violent crimes. There is a way out but many people choose not to take it.

If the 'social situation' of everyone were perfect, than in theory there would be less crime. That would apply in a society where everyone was the same, but in the real world, people are all different some people just choose to be criminals. No one ever forced someone else at gunpoint to be a criminal, people choose thier fate, no matter how good or bad their social situation is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the society is so dangerous that you need to have a weapon to survive then something is fucked with that society. <span id='postcolor'>

You don't need a weapon to survive over here, a weapon is there as an insurance policy. So if the worst does happen, then at least you are prepared. People arm themselves in parts of the U.S. for the same reason that people put on thier seatbelts in a car. It's unlikely that you will ever get in an accident but it is good to be safe and put on a seatbelt anyway, just in case. I never said that we should rely only on guns to ensure a lower crime rate. Crime will always be present because people aren't perfect.

Guns deter criminals but they do not stop crime as a whole.

Tyler

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't mention where this happened or whether or not the robbers had firearms. <span id='postcolor'>

He lives in Florida, it happened there.

Who cares if the intruders had firearms? They entered the place with the intention of tying people up and burning them to death. Luckily the didn't have the guts to do it.

I am willing to bet that the people in that home now have a gun for protection.