Guns, your opinions?

['Butterflies']

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

The police are responsible for protecting the public here.

If we were reponsible for our own protection, we'd be dead in no time

[Osensitive1]

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

God?

Is that a question?

[Osensitive1]

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

The police are responsible for protecting the public here.

If we were reponsible for our own protection, we'd be dead in no time

The police are to protect and serve here too. Guess that would suffice if one lived with me.

['Butterflies']

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

The police are responsible for protecting the public here.

If we were reponsible for our own protection, we'd be dead in no time

The police are to protect and serve here too. Guess that would suffice if one lived with me.

It's just that I listen to what DirtDawg and PPK say, and I get the impression that where they live the onus is on the individual to protect themselves. Where I live the onus is with the police to do it, although we are advised to take obvious precautions like locking our doors, and having burglar alarms. I can understand how that situation appeals to the people who love guns and are adept at using them, but it must be pretty scary for the people who either choose not to own a gun, or lack the ability or courage to use it well.

[Scrapheap]

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

The police are responsible for protecting the public here.

If we were reponsible for our own protection, we'd be dead in no time

The police are to protect and serve here too. Guess that would suffice if one lived with me.

It's just that I listen to what DirtDawg and PPK say, and I get the impression that where they live the onus is on the individual to protect themselves. Where I live the onus is with the police to do it, although we are advised to take obvious precautions like locking our doors, and having burglar alarms. I can understand how that situation appeals to the people who love guns and are adept at using them, but it must be pretty scary for the people who either choose not to own a gun, or lack the ability or courage to use it well.

Here in the US, there have been some rather disturbing court decisions in which it was determined that the cops owe no responsibility in individual cases to protect people, they only have to protect society at large. So regardless of police neglect they can never be held accountable for failing to protect people from criminals.

[Zippo]

Schleed, i agree with you with one exception to what you say. i would extend the protection from just yourself to yourself and your loved ones. but beyond that its just interfering in someone else's business. you dont know who's right and wrong in the situation and so you should not get involved, leave it for the cops to sort it out...

Now, wait right there.

The cops should make a decision on whether to protect ourselves or not?

Where are the cops when the ACTUAL need to protect ourselves arises?
They are never there when you need them most.

Their job is to apprehend those who blatantly defy the law, outright, and bring the perpetrators to a magistrate of some sort for judgment. While this can be useful, it is this very notion that excludes them from being effective in "PREVENTING"  crime.

I take it that you have never been a victim of crime?

The ability to protect oneself from an assailant is the same as a basic human right. It should NEVER be questioned.

my point was that one should not get involved in a situation one does not know about. if five people are beating a kid i would say you can draw and get them off if not shoot them. but if two people are fighting, stabbing or shooting at each other just dont get involved because you dont know who started it or why.

Fine, so what if you awaken in the middle of the night to witness an altercation outside your own door?

While you may THINK you are not involved, by default (it is happening WHERE you live, FFS), you ARE involved. (OK, I am conceding that there might be a slight difference in ability between apartment dwellers and land owners - apartment dwellers go hide when the shit happens, but land owners have a tendency to actually protect what they own.  I have owned land most of my life, as did many generations before me. I was raised to protect what is dear to me. A fight going on outside my door is something I can not abide. I will set things to order in MY way, THEN allow the police to take over, once they finally get there.)

No one in their right mind can possibly expect for the police, armed with multiple, powerful weapons as ours are or not, to actually "prevent"  such a crime.
The police are an ineffective means at times like this.  Mostly, they show up after things are already settled and mop up, often drawing wrong conclusions about what has transpired.

It is upon the land owner to take care of himself, in most cases, unless that person places full trust in the forbearance of such criminals as well as the police. In such a simple case, then that person gets, and deserves, what he is prepared to accept.

I do not. I am prepared to make my place a safe place.

my general idea was not on home/land deffence but more walking down the street while packing situation. i see no problem if two people are fighting on your lawn to get the good ol' 12 gage out and make them either get face down in the dirt or run off while you call the cops. if they come towards you or start to draw, there on YOUR land. they are fucking with YOUR property and YOUR family. and they should be prepared to get what YOU throw at them and if they are not then it sucks to be them because they chose the place and time without thinking of the response

[Osensitive1]

Have heard of more than one occasion of police officers getting their guns and badges stolen.

['Butterflies']

Not sure what you mean. Who do you feel is responsible for protecting you?

The police are responsible for protecting the public here.

If we were reponsible for our own protection, we'd be dead in no time

The police are to protect and serve here too. Guess that would suffice if one lived with me.

It's just that I listen to what DirtDawg and PPK say, and I get the impression that where they live the onus is on the individual to protect themselves. Where I live the onus is with the police to do it, although we are advised to take obvious precautions like locking our doors, and having burglar alarms. I can understand how that situation appeals to the people who love guns and are adept at using them, but it must be pretty scary for the people who either choose not to own a gun, or lack the ability or courage to use it well.

Here in the US, there have been some rather disturbing court decisions in which it was determined that the cops owe no responsibility in individual cases to protect people, they only have to protect society at large. So regardless of police neglect they can never be held accountable for failing to protect people from criminals.

That's just scary. Over here the police might fail, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing that they're supposed to be protecting me, than knowing I was responsible for my own protection. Out of the 4 of us that live here, not one of us would be capable f standing up to a criminal.

It's not that I think Americans are wrong to choose to keep guns. I think it's wrong that they have to feel that they need to keep guns.

[Buzz Killington]

AFAIK the police here have the same duty to provide for common defense that they do in the UK, we just also have the choice of supplementing that protection if we so choose.  One common reason for doing so is that the police generally function more on an after the fact basis to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers than they do in a protective fashion, so if you want to prevent violence from being done to you it's better to be able to protect yourself.  A common aphorism in the self defense crowd is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and though I don't like to argue from slogans it does rather succinctly explain the rationale.  Even in a surveillance state like the UK, I imagine there are plenty of incidents were the police simply can not be relied upon to provide physical protection, and that's where the need for a self defense capability comes in.

['Butterflies']

AFAIK the police here have the same duty to provide for common defense that they do in the UK, we just also have the choice of supplementing that protection if we so choose.  One common reason for doing so is that the police generally function more on an after the fact basis to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers than they do in a protective fashion, so if you want to prevent violence from being done to you it's better to be able to protect yourself.  A common aphorism in the self defense crowd is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and though I don't like to argue from slogans it does rather succinctly explain the rationale.  Even in a surveillance state like the UK, I imagine there are plenty of incidents were the police simply can not be relied upon to provide physical protection, and that's where the need for a self defense capability comes in.

Of course, and I do see your logic. If I was like you, with guns and a good ability to use them I'd probably think it was a great idea if we all owned guns. I would imagine though, that any good thief would know what houses were likely to be protected by guns, and which ones weren't. That situation would leave people like me as little more than sitting ducks.

[Eclair]

AFAIK the police here have the same duty to provide for common defense that they do in the UK, we just also have the choice of supplementing that protection if we so choose.  One common reason for doing so is that the police generally function more on an after the fact basis to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers than they do in a protective fashion, so if you want to prevent violence from being done to you it's better to be able to protect yourself.  A common aphorism in the self defense crowd is "when seconds count the police are minutes away", and though I don't like to argue from slogans it does rather succinctly explain the rationale.  Even in a surveillance state like the UK, I imagine there are plenty of incidents were the police simply can not be relied upon to provide physical protection, and that's where the need for a self defense capability comes in.

Of course, and I do see your logic. If I was like you, with guns and a good ability to use them I'd probably think it was a great idea if we all owned guns. I would imagine though, that any good thief would know what houses were likely to be protected by guns, and which ones weren't. That situation would leave people like me as little more than sitting ducks.

He he, I had a visual of gumby scooter girl with a gun. 

Sorry, not making fun, just sharing a meaningless visual I had.

[Buzz Killington]

Of course, and I do see your logic. If I was like you, with guns and a good ability to use them I'd probably think it was a great idea if we all owned guns. I would imagine though, that any good thief would know what houses were likely to be protected by guns, and which ones weren't. That situation would leave people like me as little more than sitting ducks.

The thing is, most  criminals are not exactly professionals, and putting in the time to reconnoiter a potential target for signs of being armed is getting suspiciously close to work.  The way things actually go is that burglars in particular are more afraid of armed homeowners than they are of the police, and so go out of their way to make sure they are not breaking into an occupied residence.  Evidence of this has been provided both through surveys of incarcerated burglars, and by simply comparing the rates of "hot" burglaries in countries with widespread firearms ownership and those without.  CCW works on a similar concept, spotting a properly concealed weapon on the street is not easy, and if street muggers start getting shot at a high enough frequency it tips the risk/reward ratio in such a way as to make the crime unappealingly dangerous. 

The other interesting thing about guns as a self defense tool is that they're relatively egalitarian, they don't require great strength or years of training to utilize effectively, and render many of the traditional advantages of predatory people moot.  Guns level the playing field when it comes to the use of force, so to my mind it aught to be the people most likely to be physically victimized that have the greatest stake in maintaining legal access to them.

['Butterflies']

^^Yeah. I do agree with that. I dont think that Id have the guts to shoot someone. If we had a gun and someone broke into the house we'd all stand there shitting ourselves telling each other to shoot him, until the criminal took the gun off us We are a bunch of cowards I must admit.

[DirtDawg]

Honestly, I do not know of a single house in this quadrant of our town (after the inception of a "neighborhood watch"  program a few years ago, we have all come to know bits and pieces about each other. As a man with a mind toward defense, I can remember who has what in their homes, somewhat - their are only about one hundred homes in our quadrant/association) that is not armed with at least one gun of some sort, outside of one set of idiots who have just moved in recently from someplace along the east coast.

['Butterflies']

Honestly, I do not know of a single house in this quadrant of our town (after the inception of a "neighborhood watch"  program a few years ago, we have all come to know bits and pieces about each other. As a man with a mind toward defense, I can remember who has what in their homes, somewhat - their are only about one hundred homes in our quadrant/association) that is not armed with at least one gun of some sort, outside of one set of idiots who have just moved in recently from someplace along the east coast.

Even the little old ladies that live by themselves?