Forums → WEPR → gun controle gone wrong again.
| 100 | 31415 |
(Reuters) - A Connecticut man responding to his sister's call for help during an apparent burglary at her home next door, shot and killed a masked intruder who turned out to be his own teenage son, state police said on Friday.
Tyler Giuliano, 15, was wearing a ski mask and appeared to be armed when he was shot on Thursday by his father, who authorities declined to identify, said Lieutenant J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police.
The father's sister, who lives next door, was home alone before 1 a.m. when she called him to report someone trying to break into her home. The father went over to investigate and was approached by a masked person dressed entirely in black and holding a shiny object, police said in a statement.
"Believing the suspect was armed with a weapon and about to attack him, the (father) discharged his personal handgun at the suspect," police said in the statement.
Giuliano was pronounced dead at the scene.
i was wondering if you guys knew about this. and what your though on it is.
for me it's just clear that this couldn't have happend if gun were not on the public market.
- 100 Replies
I must disagree, because if I am robing someone, even a peaceful hunter-gatherer, I will still take a gun because that way he would have to close distance before he took me down, giving me time to shoot.
and you can jump high or low, it's still so that this doesn't happen as often in countries where guns are not on the public market.
small criminals have most of the time no gun whit him. just knifes and rope.
small criminals have most of the time no gun whit him. just knifes and rope.
Exactly. So while in a one on one fight, the criminal is likely going to be at least as physically able as their victim. If the victim has something to defend themselves, they can still easily lose. Not to mention a knife fight is a lot more bloody than a single gunshot. If each person has a gun, the robber is more likely to run away than fight, and if they do fight, well, even a 90 year old granny can pull the trigger of a gun in the general direction of the threat.
Guns exist. People will have them. Yes, you can limit that amount somewhat, but all you're doing is changing the weapon. The situation where the victim needs to defend themselves won't go away, and all taking guns out of the picture does is take guns out of the picture.
a knife is deadly but by far not as deadly as guns are.
and you have to do more work for it to become deadly.
pulling a trigger or chopping into someone is a huge difference.
beside can someone learn to defend itself against a knife. where you can't defend yourself from a gun.
(except if you have a gun yourself. what turns out to become a vicious circle. and the chicken or egg question)
Exactly. So while in a one on one fight, the criminal is likely going to be at least as physically able as their victim.
Usually, if you happen to wake up when someone is stealing in your home (which is probably not frequent anyway(the waking up part, I mean)), you don't step out with your sleepy eyes and confront him like a slipper hero. You snatch your phone and call the police, and try not to get the burglars attention. It's not your role to take the law into your hands. A burglar needs to be sentenced as a burglar, not with a bullet in the head.
you don't step out with your sleepy eyes and confront him like a slipper hero. You snatch your phone and call the police, and try not to get the burglars attention
Of course you do. Except the only criminals in this world aren't just people after your stuff. Just because I'm advocating that guns shouldn't be banned doesn't mean I'm saying shoot everything that threatens you, far from it. Personal judgement is needed. Even if you -do- end up having to shoot, it should never be intended to be a kill shot.
Here's the thing...there are valid arguments against having guns. However, I'm firm in my belief that just because some idiots can't handle them doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed. They have their uses and they will always be around. The real problem is people, not guns. You can't blame an inanimate object for doing something, you can only blame the people who use them. The people who use them are vastly different, from intent to kill, self-defence, sport, and hunting.
Yes, there may be less deaths in a nation which outlaws guns. There will be more victims though, because guns put everyone on equal footing, and I'd much prefer a few more dead criminals than victims. Again, this doesn't mean I'm saying to try and kill whoever is attacking you, but if it happens, they dug their own grave.
a knife is deadly but by far not as deadly as guns are.
and you have to do more work for it to become deadly.
No weapon can be underestimated. Someone might not have a gun, so the guy with the three inch knife is looking a lot more deadly now.
And this can cover any non-theft crime: When seeking revenge, dig two graves.
No matter the situation, people get hurt, and can die. Limiting guns, knives, or other weapons just changes the cause (and speed) of death.
No weapon can be underestimated. Someone might not have a gun, so the guy with the three inch knife is looking a lot more deadly now.
whit a few self defense lessens... not realy.
When seeking revenge, dig two graves.
when someone wants revenge, you simply do not have the time to pull your gun. especially not if there is a good chance you have a gun.
No matter the situation, people get hurt, and can die. Limiting guns, knives, or other weapons just changes the cause (and speed) of death.
the speed / time can make a difference in life or death.
the longer you have, the longer you can think of something to survive.
There will be more victims though
ive been seeking to find some statistics on this.
but couldn't find anything to compare. can you give me some?
whit a few self defense lessens... not realy.
This again? Not everyone is Rambo. Not everyone who takes self defence lessons is good at them. Not everyone who has the skills can successfully use them in a real life situation. Not everyone who has the skills and can use them can overpower every opponent.
Whereas a 10 year old, if seriously pressed, could stand a chance at defending himself against a black belt if he had a gun.
ive been seeking to find some statistics on this.
but couldn't find anything to compare. can you give me some?
I gave some earlier in that nationmaster links. The largest factor in the amount of crimes/personal assaults were the country's stability, not their gun control policy. Secondary to that factor was, in nations with strict gun control, were less homicides but more cases of ****, theft, and assault.
If you -really- want me to look for some good statistics, I'll do so I guess. I'd rather not though, as I have other things to do and that may take a while, because I'd have to compile lists of countries with varying degrees of gun control, find homicide/crime rates and then compare everything...
nationsmaster isn't a good source anymore.
they are outdated and by far not enough info has been gathered.
the 1 your aiming at now is from 2002 and not 1 country in africa or asia is listed in it. (except japan)
Secondary to that factor was, in nations with strict gun control, were less homicides
this doesn't count for the usa. as they are 3rd in the homocide rating of 2011.
as for the rest. yea i would be interested in those numbers.
and the only reason i stopped searching was because i had to do other things aswell.
but i don't mind if we leave it whit this. we both wont butch from our principle point.
You must be logged in to post a reply!