Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[graciew]

I for one may provide some of our info.
Burglary is one.
Then there are those who would choose to get into a house with the owner ( at gunpoint) as they arrive home,for example or when the owners are in because they lead them by fear to the money hidden,and all they want to take.
So yes,they operate differently.
And then there is the more " comando" style when they know or aim at specific target because they know there is fact is money to get
In almost all that involve people present,the surprise factor is obviously top.As it is the quick
Getting into the house with the owner at gunpoint renders everyone at home defenseless from the start.

Same goes with kidnapping/ express kidnapping.

Disgraceful all of them.

 

[upant]

Citation?

past thread, check there, didn’t bookmark survey. if i run across it i will repost.

but this is from http://www.davekopel.com

The entry pattern of American burglars contrasts sharply with that of burglars in other nations; in Canada and Great Britain, burglars prefer to find the residents at home, since alarms will be turned off, and wallets and purses will be available for the taking.

this chart shows the percentage of burglaries with someone at home from british archives . http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Just saying. You posted a stabbing in China and insinuated that responsibility laid partially upon a gun ban.

No such ban in the US, but a nearly identical event.

no, i didn’t.

i showed where they have gun bans they still have killings. gun bans don’t stop the killings. the perp will use a different tool. guns aren’t the reason for the killings.

have you destroyed your semi-auto’s yet?

And still, arching over all of it, is the fact that a burglar is far, far more likely to avoid your home simply if he thinks you’re in it.

why do you think that is?
why isn’t it the same in england?

 

[graciew]

I do not think this has been mentioned before,but from the outside,one of the greatest deterrents is that in some countries like US credit cards are extensively used and there is no money at home.
No surprises of banks " disappearing",of government " surprises" of economical " clamps" or no government deciding that one will simple not be able to withdraw money for who knows how long,or only a say 100 dollars withdrawal a week and the list may go on and so.
This is a deterrent. The fact that it is known that there isn’t a chance of money or jewely at home.
Whereas…when the opposite happens, homes are very vulnerable.
And to make known,for instance in my case,that there is no.money at home,I pay with credit,debit when possible or cheque. Never cash if possible.This in a small town. Wouldn’ t work in the city though much.
Just keep some money and easily enough to be found ,never where children are or sleep,so if it happens they may get it themselves with your indications.
So that they leave and soon.
People may be killed for very little…
We’ve given up on wearing jewelry or what may appear as jewelery long long ago…
Take care.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Your argument only holds water if a bunch of Brits decided to buy firearms in the years leading up to the ban. No matter, the evidence indicates that murderers simply switched to a different weapon or are able to easily acquire firearms illegally.

 

[Theo520]

why do you think that is?

It’s guaranteed
by definition, a burglar will only break in when you are away.

You have to talk to criminals charged with robbery, rape, or some other assault charge to get a read on whether weapons matter.

 

[Theo520]

You just need to pretend it is in order to try to mount some limp, impotent defense as to why a scared conservative needs to emotionally inject a gun into the situation. Do you work for Fox News, by chance?

Let’s look at some choice statements by the burglars about their burglary, shall we?

“Burglars don’t want to be seen.”

“[We want to learn] Who lives in the home, what are their weekday schedules (weekends are too unpredictable), what they drive, is there a dog, a hidden key,” wrote one inmate.”

"What time the house would be empty and for how long,” wrote another.

The biggest deterrent isn’t the AR-15 in the closet. It’s simply the homeowner being home.

Check and mate, Theo.

Have a nice weekend. Last

why do you ignore an objective review of your argument?

We both agree that people who commit burglary are well deterred just by someone being home. They plan their crime for when the house is empty. But this group is just a sub-grouping of criminals.

What about the groups of criminals that commit robbery, rape, kidnapping etc? These criminals are the exact opposite, they intentionally target when people are present. Research on guns as a deterrent would need to target these criminals.

Speaking to burglars is nothing but a red herring, these criminals have litle relevance to the discussion on whether guns are a deterrent.

 

[jimsnew]

How do you know you won;t ever need one?

 

[abucs]

How do you know you won;t ever need one?

I wouldn’t say that I know I don’t need one but I judge that I don’t need one.

Where I am now (usually) the crime does not seem to be a problem and my building has (unarmed) security guards. It is a judgement call only.

 

[Seagull]

Wow :thinking:195 people voted.
NEVER would of guessed that many !
70 percent - still holds strong.

 

[Ender]

Vonsalza:

Awsome. So banning semi-automatic weapons wouldn’t reduce deaths by semi-automatic weapons. Got it.

I’ve been traveling so wasn’t able to respond to this before, but two things come to mind here: first, you never suggested banning semi-automatic weapons before. Here was your proposal:

Just decree that there can’t be any new ones. It won’t take long before the black market COMPLETELY prices out the common thug.

Aside from the fact that very few thugs use AR-15s, it isn’t clear how waiting 20-50 years for guns to wear out - and hoping that the parts that do wear out are not readily replaceable - constitutes much of a policy.

Second, automatic weapons don’t account for a very large percentage of gun deaths anyway, so even if you could ban them (whatever that means in practice) it really wouldn’t have much effect on the problem…assuming that this is the primary objective.

Americans own something like 15 million AR-15-style rifles, which have been one of the biggest-selling firearm categories during the last decade or so. These guns are almost never used to commit violent crimes. According to the FBI, rifles of all kinds accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. Contrary to what you may have heard, handguns are also by far the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as “assault weapons” under the definition used in a 2013 bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). More recent data show a similar pattern.

 

[MaryEstelle2]

I believe it or not-own several long guns and a couple of handguns. I have them because of the area I am in. Once I happened to look up and a woman was looking in the window. Her husband was 'hiding behind a tree. There are all kinds of bad things going on these days. I do not choose to be a victim. I don’t ‘carry’ but know how to use a tool that has been put before me. Peter had a sword. I have a 12 ga. Peter was excitable and aggressive. I don’t think I am.

 

[Vonsalza]

How do you know you won;t ever need one?

An argument that can be used for anything.

I mean absolutely anything.

-Which means its a meaningless argument per my old Philosophy professors. But what did they know, right? They just taught Aristotelian logic for a living…

 

[Ender]

An argument that can be used for anything.

I mean absolutely anything.

-Which means its a meaningless argument per my old Philosophy professors. But what did they know, right? They just taught Aristotelian logic for a living…

True. The real question is one of insuring against tragedy. For most of us the risk of home invasion is low. On the other hand, if such an incident occurred, the personal loss could be enormous. If the cost of protecting against such an incident is also low, what is the argument against doing it? The likelihood of my house burning down is also pretty low, but that hasn’t kept me from spending money annually on the purchase of fire insurance. Owning a gun is another way of purchasing life and homeowner’s insurance.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

An argument that can be used for anything.

I mean absolutely anything.

-Which means its a meaningless argument per my old Philosophy professors. But what did they know, right? They just taught Aristotelian logic for a living…

True. The real question is one of insuring against tragedy…

Sure, but realize that’s just rephrasing the original fallacy in a slightly more serious tone.

At the end of the day, a growing number of Americans feel that - like nuclear weapons - the proliferation of firearms does more societal harm than good. The truly odd event where a homeowner successfully routes a genuinely determined invader (again, a truly rare event) does not justify the increased societal ills brought about by the availability of those very same weapons.

Owning a gun is another way of purchasing life and homeowner’s insurance.

We think so, but how many home invasions end with the homeowner successfully defending hearth and home and how many end with the homeowner dead? Worse yet, how many end with the homeowner dead and their gun stolen and ready for the next crime?

Again, if you’re prepped for a home invasion, I hope you’re also prepped for a lightening strike since it’s only roughly twice as likely. Not much difference as I see it when you get into infinitesimal probabilities.

 

[Ender]

At the end of the day, a growing number of Americans feel that - like nuclear weapons - the proliferation of firearms does more societal harm than good.

This is perhaps true, but pretty much meaningless since “growing number” is utterly undefined. I imagine it’s also true that a “growing number” think it is becoming even more important to own a weapon. Since most people probably don’t have a firm belief one way or the other, both numbers could be growing simultaneously as more and more people take a position.

The truly odd event where a homeowner successfully routes a genuinely determined invader (again, a truly rare event) does not justify the increased societal ills brought about by the availability of those very same weapons.

How high would the chances of needing a weapon have to be before you would say that owning one would be reasonable? 1:1000? 1:100,000?

Again, if you’re prepped for a home invasion, I hope you’re also prepped for a lightening strike since it’s only roughly twice as likely.

This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. My next door neighbor’s house was hit by lightening. If I thought a home invasion was as possible as a lightening strike I’d probably buy a weapon.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is perhaps true, but pretty much meaningless since “growing number” is utterly undefined.

Two thoughts here;

The first is that “a growing number” is anything but meaningless in the context of representational democracy. Perhaps you live under a government where popular dynamics don’t mean anything, but I live in the states where the will of the people often becomes the law of the land.

Second, it’s hardly “utterly undefined”, but I think experience on these forums shows it’s a fairly useless practice to quote numbers that conflict with folks already decided ideologies. As a hallmark of conservatism, they’ll just deny the numbers are legitimate. But if you insist, the number of Americans that favor more gun control is most commonly being cited in the 40th percentiles at present as I readily and frequently encounter them.

I imagine it’s also true that a “growing number” think it is becoming even more important to own a weapon.

In the currently public-shooting-every-month climate?

Serious question - do you actually watch the news? If so, anything other than Fox?

Since most people probably don’t have a firm belief one way or the other, both numbers could be growing simultaneously…

As I understand it, percentiles must cap at 100%…

How high would the chances of needing a weapon have to be before you would say that owning one would be reasonable? 1:1000? 1:100,000?

It’s tied to the same increase in gun violence that proliferation would have.

This might be the most essential issue between us; for the pro-control crowd, it isn’t a 1-factor analysis.

This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence.

The power of anecdotes, right?

For some folks, the 1-in-a-zillion odds of being mauled by a bear in Times Square is sufficient reasoning for them to buy bear mace.

The effect of fear…

 

[Bradskii]

Vonsalza:

An argument that can be used for anything.

I mean absolutely anything.

-Which means its a meaningless argument per my old Philosophy professors. But what did they know, right? They just taught Aristotelian logic for a living…

True. The real question is one of insuring against tragedy. For most of us the risk of home invasion is low. On the other hand, if such an incident occurred, the personal loss could be enormous. If the cost of protecting against such an incident is also low, what is the argument against doing it? The likelihood of my house burning down is also pretty low, but that hasn’t kept me from spending money annually on the purchase of fire insurance. Owning a gun is another way of purchasing life and homeowner’s insurance.

The question could be rephrased. Would you be prepared to kill someone who is trying to rob you?

I guess the answer in the States would be: ‘Yes’ for a significant percentage of the population. In Australia I would guess most people would answer: ‘What in God’s name are you talking about!’

I don’t know how Americans react when someone knocks on the door over there, but down here we open it to see who is there and what they want. If the guy has a gun pointing it at me when I open it and he wants cash then he gets all that he wants. He doesn’t want to shoot me and I don’t want to be dead. And I don’t want to shoot him either.

The access Americans have to guns is the root cause of your problems. Preventing easy access to some of them or requiring more stringent background checks to own some of them will not solve your immediate problem. There will still be shootings because you are oversubscribed with weaponry to the most ridiculous extent.

But, I would like to think that it may change attitudes. It will happen very slowly. It may take a couple of generations. But you guys have to get away from the notion that guns are an everyday and ordinary part of life. Until that happens, you need to be honest enough to state that the gunning down of church goers, women and children and anyone else who is in the wrong place at the wrong time is the price you are prepared to pay to maintain the status quo.

 

[Athanasiy]

It depends on geography, that is, depends on where the person lives. In some countries, you may need to carry a gas can, in other countries it is necessary to be armed with at least a gun with fake bullets, and there are regions where it is safer with weapons.
In the past centuries, for example, when some agricultural nations fought for their independence, they were disarmed first and then exterminated by the terror and the famine.
Even today, the authorities often see themselves as cynical occupants to their own unarmed people.
Arm or not arm people, this question can not be answered unequivocally. There are risks of revolutions and civil wars. On the other hand, if justice is powerless to solve problems with crime, people are forced to defend themselves.

 

[Ender]

… “a growing number” is anything but meaningless in the context of representational democracy…the number of Americans that favor more gun control is most commonly being cited in the 40th percentiles at present as I readily and frequently encounter them.

Let’s assume 130 million Americans support more gun control. If the number went up to 130 million and one it would meet the definition of “a growing number”, and it would be meaningless.

Serious question - do you actually watch the news? If so, anything other than Fox?

No, and no. I do read opinion pieces, and research individual topics.

As I understand it, percentiles must cap at 100%…

You claim 40+ percent of Americans support more gun controls. Are you suggesting that the other 50+ percent oppose them, or do you believe that in addition to the people who have taken a position either for or against there are also a large number who have no settled position? If the former, then “in the context of representational democracy” we should reject the concept of increased controls. If the latter then both the pro and anti gun control sides could demonstrate “a growing number” of supporters simultaneously.

For some folks, the 1-in-a-zillion odds of being mauled by a bear in Times Square is sufficient reasoning for them to buy bear mace.

This evades the real question here and demeans the concern for personal safety by suggesting it is irrational.

This might be the most essential issue between us; for the pro-control crowd, it isn’t a 1-factor analysis.

I’m sure this is where we part company. You have valid societal concerns, but that doesn’t diminish the equally valid concerns of those who oppose your solutions.

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s assume 130 million Americans support more gun control. If the number went up to 130 million and one…

So denialism… Expected.

You claim 40+ percent of Americans support more gun controls. Are you suggesting that the other 50+ percent oppose them…

No. The remaining 60% is seems split pretty evenly between the neutrals and the pro-gun crowd.

It’s very likely that right now most Americans support increasing gun regulations, as hard as it will be for most on this thread to consider it.

This evades the real question here and demeans the concern for personal safety by suggesting it is irrational.

No, that’s exactly my point.
“I need a gun on my person because I may be attacked!” is an irrational idea at the national level.

And since an FBI study I looked at once identified the number of rounds fired in self-defense situations averaging between 2 or 3, the threatened citizen (and thus criminals) probably doesn’t need a Glock 19. A .38 wheel gun will probably do fine.

I’m sure this is where we part company. You have valid societal concerns, but that doesn’t diminish the equally valid concerns of those who oppose your solutions.

I don’t consider them equally valid.

A classroom of dead children isn’t an acceptable price to pay so scared conservatives can needlessly arm themselves which simultaneously makes these weapons more available, contributing to more classrooms full of dead kids…