Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Gun control

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless...

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

by Anonymousreply 12302/03/2013

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

by Anonymousreply 101/23/2013

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few side arms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

by Anonymousreply 201/23/2013

OP/R1, you're a fucking idiot.

by Anonymousreply 301/23/2013

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

by Anonymousreply 401/23/2013

OP must work for the NRA and/or FoxNews and/or the Tea Party.

Hey freeper, how you doing?

by Anonymousreply 501/23/2013

Why, r3?

by Anonymousreply 601/23/2013

As this shows, the slow process of gun control WILL result in people defending their homes going to jail, for life, due to stupid, evil laws.

If every person on the street was potentially armed then muggings would stop, and home invasions would drop.

by Anonymousreply 701/23/2013

R5

Why is that freeper?

If a thug broke into your home, and you shot him and then YOU went to jail for life, would you change your mind?

by Anonymousreply 801/23/2013

[quote]As this shows, the slow process of gun control WILL result in people defending their homes going to jail, for life, due to stupid, evil laws.

Completely unwarranted assumption. The US is not the UK.

The NRA is stupid and evil. Common sense gun control and gun-safety laws are anything BUT evil.

You're an idiot. And you're stupid. And you're a dumb-ass.

I hate morons who argue false equivalencies and who fear-monger, because they have no actual facts or statistics to back up their position.

by Anonymousreply 901/23/2013

R8, and if a jack-booted thug shot you in the face, would that change YOUR mind?

Jesus.

So you think that the tens of thousands of people shot every year in this country is "acceptable", and therefore we should do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of blood?

Let's ask all the victims of gunshots, shall we? Since JFK was shot, more people have died at the end of a gun in this country (not including wars) than in ALL the wars this country has EVER fought since its founding (including Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)

Americans have shot and killed more Americans than all of Americas enemies put together.

Fuck you and your fucking fear-mongering bullshit sponsored by the NRA.

Side note: The NRA is a lobbyist organization for gun sellers. They have no interest in promoting gun safety; their ONLY priority is maximizing the profits of gun sellers. Period.

by Anonymousreply 1001/23/2013

"Let's ask all the victims of gunshots, shall we? Since JFK was shot, more people have died at the end of a gun in this country (not including wars) than in ALL the wars this country has EVER fought since its founding (including Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)"

You neglect to mention the millions that have died at the end of US guns in Viet Nam, Iraq, Syria...

Gun rights are to prevent our government from turning our country into Nazi Germany.

R9

Are you too stupid to read? "sensible gun laws" end up in confiscation, and look at how well it has worked in the UK. They have a violent crime rate 5 times higher than the US.

by Anonymousreply 1101/23/2013

The cities with the most "gun control laws"- Chicago, DC, NYC- have the highest gun crime rates in the country.

Please explain that.

by Anonymousreply 1201/23/2013

[quote]Gun rights are to prevent our government from turning our country into Nazi Germany.

Anyone stupid enough to believe that, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Yeah, right. You're hand-gun or rifle is going to protect you from the US Army.

Maybe if you supported cutting military spending first, I might think your opinion wasn't [italic]complete[/italic] shit...

by Anonymousreply 1301/23/2013

R12? Correlation is not causation.

by Anonymousreply 1401/23/2013

R13-

If they tried, they would have a bloodbath.

I think that we should withdraw all our troops from overseas, and focus on protecting our own country.

I think that 9/11 was blowback from our attacks on the middle east for the last 100 years.

I think that the US police state is destroying our civil rights, and that Obama is worse than Bush.

I think that the TSA, Dept of "Homeland" Security and other new agencies are just the start of Nazi America.

I think that the constant bailouts of the banks, big corporations and subsidies to big corporations should be stopped.

So, unless you disagree, you are the idiot.

by Anonymousreply 1501/23/2013

R14-

Correlation is not causation, but when the the top 50 cities with the toughest gun laws are also the top of violent crime, correlation is inevitable.

by Anonymousreply 1601/23/2013

Oh, and when the cities that have the most liberal concealed carry gun laws have the lowest violent crime rates, it takes an idiot not to see the pattern.

by Anonymousreply 1701/23/2013

[quote]and that Obama is worse than Bush.

And with that, you lose ALL credibility.

by Anonymousreply 1801/23/2013

R17, you're as stupid as you are misinformed.

by Anonymousreply 1901/23/2013

R18, Obama has passed more laws than Bush to restrict civil liberties and if you are too stupid to research that (and just believe what you hear from the government) then it proves how effective government education really is!

by Anonymousreply 2001/23/2013

R20, your hyperbole doesn't make it true. You're in fact wrong.

Nothing Obama has done has even remotely the scope and reach of the Patriot Act (which admittedly he keeps renewing, but it's not like it's within his power to just eliminate it even if he wanted to).

by Anonymousreply 2101/23/2013

Delete OP, and delete this thread.

by Anonymousreply 2201/23/2013

Good post OP.

There are indeed many on Datalounge that favor complete disbandment of the 2nd Amendment and total ban on guns. They sympathize with the criminals more than the victims who choose to protect themselves.

A few weeks ago, the lady who hid her children and herself in a closet and then shot an intruder as he was trying to get in the closet was severely criticized on DL. Posters were saying she behaved in the wrong for protecting herself and that she should have run instead. She was even smacked for not answering the door and inviting the crooks in!

So that's what we have now. Many cowards reside on the DL. They don't want to protect themselves and don't want you to be able too either.

by Anonymousreply 2301/23/2013

For the ignorant troll at R21

-----

WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.

It declared that "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."

The provision sparked a heated debate in the Senate, but ultimately passed by a wide majority with both supporters and opponents of U.S. terrorist detention practices voting for it, citing differing interpretations. Feinstein offered the amendment to clarify a part of the 2012 NDAA that for the first time codified the ability of the military and White House to detain terrorism suspects.

by Anonymousreply 2401/23/2013

[quote]There are indeed many on Datalounge that favor complete disbandment of the 2nd Amendment and total ban on guns. They sympathize with the criminals more than the victims who choose to protect themselves.

You don't do yourself any favors starting off with blatant lies like that.

by Anonymousreply 2501/23/2013

R23-

That's why I post here.

The cowards and pussies that think the government can protect us have no clue. If I can make one of them wake up to the true meaning of the 2nd Amendement- protecting us FROM the government- then it is worth it.

by Anonymousreply 2601/23/2013

Troll-dar r24, then go back through the thread. Get a pair of sunglasses first though.

by Anonymousreply 2701/23/2013

THI IS WHY if something like the example happens to you, (1) Do not call the police; (2) Get a couple of the large Glad trash bags; (3) Drag the dead perp into the bathroom and cut him up in the tub; (4) Put the pieces in the trashbags, haul them waaay out in the country and dump them; (5) Return home and clean up.

by Anonymousreply 2801/23/2013

R28

This is why guns need to be legal, no restrictions.

If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns.

Look at the UK. Violent crime is FIVE TIMES higher than in the US.

by Anonymousreply 2901/23/2013

It's truly eye-opening - and sad - the types of responses you get when you post stories like yours OP. You will be criticized mercilessly for suggesting that people have the balls to protect themselves from whatever harm may come to them; be it from common criminals or uncommon ones. Self-defense is a dirty word amongst many.

by Anonymousreply 3001/23/2013

Knew by the 3rd paragraph this was the Tony Martin case.

Nice try though. The surviving shooter wasn't made into some folk hero, and the Martin case divided a lot of people. Why? Because it's likely he lied about shooting them from his stairwell.

Instead, he shot them as they were escaping back out the window and it's thought that he lay in wait for them downstairs because he had been robbed before.

The UK doesn't want legalised guns, especially not in N Ireland. Everyone here thinks Americans are psychopaths.

by Anonymousreply 3101/23/2013

[quote] English law permits one person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.

by Anonymousreply 3201/23/2013

R31

If I had been robbed, or even if I feared it, and laid in wait for someone to rob me, and someone obliged me by BREAKING INTO MY HOUSE and I shot them...well, fuck them.

They deserved to die.

Fuck you for defending criminals.

by Anonymousreply 3301/23/2013

And even if they were escaping from an attempted robbery, then they deserved to die. If you broke into my house and ran our the door I would shoot you in the back to keep your violent, evil, amoral ass from robbing me again.

by Anonymousreply 3401/23/2013

The law states if an intruder enters your home you have every right to shoot them and not be charged for murder or manslaughter or whatever. Bone up on the law please.

by Anonymousreply 3501/23/2013

R35-

Please read the thread before offering idiotic comments.

by Anonymousreply 3601/24/2013

Op's story from England isn't the type of "gun control" that the Obama Administration is seeking to institute.

Nearly all adults will still be able to legally have firearm in their homes.

Plus, regardless of the breadth of gun ownership rights, that doesn't really affect whether the homeowner would be charged with murder in the U.S. In almost every instance they wouldn't. Most jurisdictions follow some form of the "castle doctrine" and allow homeowners/residents to defend themselves without asking questions -- to shoot to kill if there is an intruder. So, if an adult in the U.S. happened to have an illegal firearm and shot and killed an intruder, he wouldn't be charged with murder, but rather for some illegal firearm offense.

There have been recent Supreme Court cases (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago) which have held that the second amendment enshrines the right to possess firearms for self defense and therefore municipalities cannot have universal gun bans.

People can still have plenty of guns and ammo in their home. Obama's not looking to ban guns. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't

by Anonymousreply 3701/24/2013

R37-

Please re-read. Gun control is an insidious and slow moving thing.

A law requiring all Americans to be armed at all times would be better than any limits on guns.

by Anonymousreply 3801/24/2013

Actually, it wouldn't.

by Anonymousreply 3901/24/2013

R39-

How many people would get mugged, or robbed, or attacked if they knew that their victim was armed?

How many cops would act like assholes if they knew that they could get shot by their victims?

by Anonymousreply 4001/24/2013

I can't speak for the UK, but I'm yet to read of a case in Australia where a person who used force to defend themselves in their own home has received anything but widespread support from the general public.

And we have pretty tight gun regulations.

And we have pretty low rates of gun violence too.

by Anonymousreply 4101/24/2013

The ESTs have taken a strange turn.

by Anonymousreply 4201/24/2013

Not an EST, hit trolldar on the OP's posts and you see one anti-government post after another, crazy gun loving freeper shit lighting up the DL.

by Anonymousreply 4301/25/2013

No one has mentioned that the NRA are bigots.

Until the 1970s, the NRA had a long history of supporting gun control. Surprised? Why did they change their minds? For them it depends on who wants the guns:

"The [NRA} had a change of heart in the 1970s when the Black Panthers advocated for an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, the Panthers were the founders of the modern-day gun rights movement, which became the purview of predominantly white, rural conservatives."

There is a stop-and-frisk program in NYC. The cops target poor neighborhoods that have black and brown people. Pretty clearly it is unconstitutional. It absolutely is racist.

If those people had guns, stop and frisk would end pretty damn quick, You ever hear the NRA advocate that they should have guns? Have you heard the NRA say that Trayvon Martin would be alive today if he had a Glock?

How do you think the NRA feels about people trying to protect their jobs?

There is a bus strike in NYC. Would the NRA say that if people on picket lines had guns it would even things out between the strikers on one side and the cops and scabs on the other? Not in this lifetime.

by Anonymousreply 4401/25/2013

I think it will be really interesting to see what happens to the crime rates in cities when only criminals have guns. People are so stupid on this issue. This is going to be like Prohibition in the 20s. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I surprised a burglar one day while sick in bed. He had a gun, and so did I. Luckily he flinched, and I didn't. I shot him in the shoulder and he ran. No one sane shoots anyone without cause. Mental illness is the issue we ignore too often.

by Anonymousreply 4501/25/2013

Most of DL posters, when confronted by an armed robber would scream, pray to the ghost of Judy Garland, and shit their pants. I wish you luck.

by Anonymousreply 4601/25/2013

You needed an assault weapon and armour piercing bullets to defend yourself, did you R45? Or do you keep that one around for your micropenis?

You might also like to know that a number of President Obama's proposed gun laws directly relate to mental health.

by Anonymousreply 4701/25/2013

OP is deranged

[quote] How many cops would act like assholes if they knew that they could get shot by their victims?

So that's how everyone is coerced into acting decent? The threat of being shot?

by Anonymousreply 4801/25/2013

OP IS deranged. and this scenario is rightwing fantasy.

NO ONE is trying to take away your "home protection" guns, nor will you be prosecuted and JAILED for defending your home when someone BREAKS IN!

YOU PARANOID MORONS!!!!

by Anonymousreply 4901/25/2013

Assault weapons are already illegal R47. By the way, you are one stupid pussy.

by Anonymousreply 5001/25/2013

R49 should stick to threads about Joan Crawford and guys presenting their holes.

by Anonymousreply 5101/25/2013

Really? You are insane. You SHOULD be worried that people are coming for your guns, because insane people shouldn't have them.

by Anonymousreply 5201/25/2013

The law in most civilised countries does not say you can shoot someone who breaks into your house. It says that you can use reasonable force to protect yourself. Therefore shooting at someone who is not shooting at you or threatening you with a gun or other lethal weapon is at a minimum manslaughter.

The law in most civilised countries does not equate the value of property as equal to a life. That is shooting someone to save your property when they are not shooting at you is manslaughter or worse.

It is aimed at stopping people using guns to esculate arguments into murder because someone claims they were threatened or accidently shooting their sons or family or friends because they thought they were intruders.

And anyway who gets to decide who is the good guy with a gun and who is the bad guy. It seems to me the "good" guys the NRA talks about are just as violent as the so called criminals, which of course in their language means black guy with a gun.

So all this gun control stuff is really a rascist rant about white guys having guns because they are scared of black guys having guns.

ANd the violent crime rate is not five times higher than the USA in Britain, it is five times lower. All guns do is esculate non violent crimes into violent ones

by Anonymousreply 5301/25/2013

The Tony Martin case hinged on whether or not had shot the dead man in the BACK with an unregistered shotgun which he had "found".

He was charged, and after a trial, found guilty of the charge and sentenced to imprisonment.

The prosecution had proved that he had lied under oath and had been in trouble with the police over firearms offences before.

If he had a licensed shotgun, fully permitted under law, he might not even have been charged.

by Anonymousreply 5401/25/2013

You can define assault weapons in different ways. I'm happy to use the definition from President Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban.

And I have no problem whatsoever with being called a pussy.

by Anonymousreply 5501/25/2013

Ban Guns. Period.

by Anonymousreply 5601/25/2013

If a burglar breaks into my home, and I am there and feel my safety or my family's safety is threatened, he will get his ass SHOT.

I will aim for his ass, but can't guarantee that's where he'll get it. I just hope I scare him, AND any other thugs who think IT IS JUST OKAY to do a home invasion to someone, that guess what, it isn't.

by Anonymousreply 5701/25/2013

First of all the scenario you describe deals with justifiable homicide, in which gun control or no gun control, the same rules of law will apply.

Second, one can have reasonable gun control and still make lawful the use of a gun in one's home for protection. That's a debate that happens in every state and has for ever.

It has nothing to do with what is currently being discussed at present in terms of gun control.

by Anonymousreply 5801/25/2013

What nobody ever talks about is that most "home invasions" are break-ins by young guys with an excess of testosterone that leads them to do dangerous and risky things who are just looking for a few things to steal.

They aren't all evil potential murderers/rapists. Most of them will grow up to be normal adult males amazed at the dumb, risky things they did as kids.

But Americans are so paranoid and so in love with their shiny doo-dads that they think a reasonable consequence if some 16 year-old breaks into their garage to steal some of their precious stuff is to blow his brains out.

You saw some of this attitude with the Trayvon Martin case, but nobody brought the point up. The whole argument was either Martin was just walking back from the convenience store and didn't deserve to be shot vs. Martin was up to no good and looking for something to steal and thus deserved to be shot.

There was absolutely no discussion about the fact that even if you assume the absolute worst about what Martin was doing, it was tragic that he was shot, and thus it was highly inappropriate for some untrained cop-wannabe armed with a deadly weapon to confront him.

by Anonymousreply 5901/25/2013

Well looky here. OP is a freeper troll.

Imagine that.

by Anonymousreply 6001/25/2013

If everybody had a gun, then every petty crime and insult will become a shooting.

Clearly the tea party set got bored with taxes, moved on to obamacare, and now have crazied up the gun-debate.

The Internet is organizing the embittered losers of the u.s. so they are coming out of their trailer lots in droves.

As soon as they started selling pcs on QVC, I knew the end was near.

Now, if only a college degree was as easy to get as a gun, then we'd be in good shape.

by Anonymousreply 6101/25/2013

P.s., nobody wants to rob these hillbilly types anyway. They are poor to begin with. Who is going to break into your camper?

To steal what, exactly?

by Anonymousreply 6201/25/2013

This is the ironic/moronic thing about the gun nuts!

by Anonymousreply 6301/25/2013

Just get a security system or a dog. Or better yet, take some personal responsibility for your life and move to a better neighborhood.

by Anonymousreply 6401/25/2013

OP- is the intruder cute? Is he there to steal my anal virginity (again)? I would cut a cute anal intruder some slack.

by Anonymousreply 6501/25/2013

Use all the skills you've learned from watching your dvds of Kelly Garrett on tv show Charlie's Angels to take down the criminal gun free.

by Anonymousreply 6601/25/2013

Is OP gay?

by Anonymousreply 6701/25/2013

Tony Martin shot the guy in the back whilst he was running away. Scumbag he may have been but he didn't deserve that. If you are being physically attacked you may defend yourself but Tony Martin did not need to use the degree of force that he did. He was also a liar. Had he been honest abbout what happened he would most likely have gotten away with a much lighter sentence.

by Anonymousreply 6801/25/2013

R59, that is extremely far from true.

I live in an affluent area of southern NH. Almost nothing EVER happens here. Yet in October 2009 four high school boys, some honor roll students, did something "risky" and broke into the home of a woman and child (husband was out of town on business). Their intent was to steal, and they had made a pact that if the homeowners woke up, they would kill them.

That is what they did. With a machete, they hacked the mother to death in front of her 9 year old daughter, who survived but is fucked up for life. The mother never even had a chance to reach for her gun, which she did actually rightfully own as most people in NH do.

My first line of defense is my dog, and an alarm system. If the intruders, whether they be "risk taking" (and fuck you for saying that is all most home invasions amount to, btw), high on drugs, or just want to kill, then god help them.

by Anonymousreply 6901/25/2013

It is a massive shame that the OP had to lie and twist his story to make his point. None says gun control will stop all violent crime but it a so much easir to kill people with a gun than with other weapons. Britain has sround 40 gun deaths a year. In America there are around 10 000. Most of these are not by people supposedly defending their homes.

by Anonymousreply 7001/25/2013

I meant to say if they remain in my home after realizing I am actually there, then look the fuck out.

by Anonymousreply 7101/25/2013

Here's the other thing about the Tony Martin case. We don't know what the offer was.

The universal rule is that if you turn down an offer and go to trial, you get hammered if you lose. Otherwise, nobody would take a plea. Over 60 percent of defendants take a plea in a Crown Court.

He probably figured he had a sympathetic story and wanted to take a shot at acquittal.

Judges hate it, absolutely hate it, when a defendant perjures himself. That probably doubled his time right there.

by Anonymousreply 7201/25/2013

Plenty of people with dogs and alarms are still burglarized. DLs who think hillbillies are only concerned about legal gun owning rights, are totally clueless

by Anonymousreply 7301/25/2013

R73, I'm missing your point. I'm usually good at reading between the lines, not today.

by Anonymousreply 7401/25/2013

THe point is, if someone is fucked up enough to break into your home, risking their own lives, then they don't much care about YOUR life either.

by Anonymousreply 7501/25/2013

R74:

I will try to put it into English:

People who rely on dogs and alarms still get burglarized.

Posters on datalounge who think it is only hillbillies (The p.c. term is "sons of the soil") who are concerned about keeping guns legal are mistaken.

by Anonymousreply 7601/25/2013

Can someone tell me why you shouldn't own a gun?

I have a Ruger 9mm loaded with hollow-tips. I don't worry about someone breaking into my house.

That being said, if it would ever happen someone is not waking up because they have a bullet between their eyes.

Yes I'm gay, but I also own a gun.

by Anonymousreply 7701/25/2013

Me too R77

by Anonymousreply 7801/25/2013

OP is a tiny-dicked wingnut

by Anonymousreply 7901/25/2013

Another disingenuous thing the OP states about the Tony Martin case is that he was woken up by the noise. It was said at his trial, and believed by the jury, that he was lying in wait...

by Anonymousreply 8001/25/2013

"The cities with the most "gun control laws"- Chicago, DC, NYC- have the highest gun crime rates in the country."

NY is a very safe city and DC has improved a lot too. Red-state dumps like Houston are a great deal more dangerous, toots.

by Anonymousreply 8101/25/2013

Please, please, please talk to your doctor about adjusting your meds.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ in a rowboat.

by Anonymousreply 8201/25/2013

Is this the Idiot Libertarian Troll(TM)? Because you smell an awful lot like him.

by Anonymousreply 8301/25/2013

Why not apply the death penalty for breaking and entering instead? Less people will be willing to risk it, and most gun fans want to kill the person, ignoring the 'reasonable' part of reasonable force.

R77 in his caftan with his 9mm will still want an excuse to shoot something.

by Anonymousreply 8401/25/2013

Nice ad hominem attach R84.

Perhaps you want to try again. Why shouldn't I own again.

And bitch, don't fucking forget the earrings!

by Anonymousreply 8501/25/2013

R80:

Read between the lines, Tony Martin was a criminal with a gun. What you want to bet the people who were breaking in had a score to settle with him?

by Anonymousreply 8601/25/2013

R84

"Less people."

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 8701/25/2013

No, the problem is not the ever increasing disparity between the wealthy and the destitute. God forbid, no! The real problem are restrictive gun laws!! Liberals are even worse than the Republicans!

by Anonymousreply 8801/25/2013

[quote]Gun rights are to prevent our government from turning our country into Nazi Germany.

The US is the country with the least amount of restrictions on gun ownership, the most guns owned per capita, and the only country with a constitutionally recognized and unqualified right to own a gun, yet in another thread you claim the US is a fascist state. If the US is, in fact, a fascist state, why didn't our obnoxious number of guns prevent this from happening?

[quote]The cities with the most "gun control laws"- Chicago, DC, NYC- have the highest gun crime rates in the country.

I really hope you're not this stupid, but you probably are. Cities and states don't have border and customs control agents searching vehicles for prohibited items upon entry. Virtually all guns used for crime in Chicago, DC and NYC were legally purchased.

by Anonymousreply 8901/25/2013

Nazi Germany actually had very loose gun laws (for Arian males, that is)

by Anonymousreply 9001/25/2013

[quote]A law requiring all Americans to be armed at all times would be better than any limits on guns.

So now the freepers want the government to force individuals to carry guns regardless of whether that individual wants to or finds it morally acceptable to him to carry a gun.

It's pretty incredible how much OP/R38 hates individual freedom.

by Anonymousreply 9101/25/2013

"What you want to bet the people who were breaking in had a score to settle with him?"

I don't have to read between the lines - Tony Martin was a nut who wanted to kill. He did.

It is one of the most notorious criminal cases in recent years.

by Anonymousreply 9201/25/2013

[quote]Look at the UK. Violent crime is FIVE TIMES higher than in the US.

Are you basing that on the study cited at the link? Because if so, you need to reach the small print:

[quote]But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

[quote]In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

[quote]There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Also note, those figures were compiled by the Tories when they were out of power and looking to score cheap political points from the Labour government.

by Anonymousreply 9301/25/2013

Ironically, North Korea's constitution requires that all citizens are armed.

Most totalitarian states have a heavily armed populace (Nazi Germany, North Korea, modern day Venezuela, etc).

by Anonymousreply 9401/25/2013

R91 was the subject of the phrase..."too stupid to live"

by Anonymousreply 9501/25/2013

r95 = op = insane.

by Anonymousreply 9601/25/2013

R94:

Not sure why you put Venezuela in with Nazi Germany and North Korea as a totalitarian state. It has a popular elected leader chosen in fair elections, chosen fairly several times in fact.

You may not like Chavez, you may not like his friendship with Castro, his attempts to end U.S. intervention in the Latin America, or even his sale of low cost heating oil to poor people in the United States.

The fact is that the people of Venezuela liked him enough to re-elect him as president in an election that The Carter centersaid was honest and aboveboard. His previous victories also were found to be honest by international observers.

Are you sure international observers would have the same confidence in our elections, considering Florida in 2008?

Speaking of totalitarian state, many households in Cuba have guns. Makes sense. They had some problems with a neighbor to their north, including an armed invasion, for oh, the last 50 years.

You want a gun in Cuba, you have to register it with the government, that's it.

What does Cuba have that we don't? They have cradle to grave health care, with better infant mortality rate than ours and far better AIDS treatment and prevention programs.

People do not have to worry about employment, retirement, or education. There is no disparity of income anything close to what we have. They an active, vibrant gay rights movement led by Mariela Castro, Raul's daughter. At the moment she is leading the campaign for gay marriage.

What do they not have that we do have? They do not have any appreciable gun violence.

Is it possible that a state that does not pit one citizen against another in a struggle for necessities might minimize violence between citizens who have access to guns?

We live in a violent society and guns make it worse, but take the guns away and you still have a violent society -- one in which it is every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

by Anonymousreply 9701/25/2013

Remember when DL was a gay website? With a moderator? Remember that? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

by Anonymousreply 9801/25/2013

Nice try, OP, but you should have done your homework before you posted something your NRA friends are no doubt circulating without thought, as you have here.

Tony Martin was a nutter, pure and simple. The general opinion outside of right wing loonies such as you was that, whilst pikeys are indeed scumbags, they don't deserve death for breaking and entry.

Lots of people wondered why he hadn't just set about them with something non-lethal (what the law allows- 'reasonable force'). It all fed into the stereotypical Farmer Giles "Get orf moy laaaand!" image and didn't do him any favours.

Oh, and looking at Wikipedia, he had form for this kind of OTT behaviour.

Try again.

by Anonymousreply 9901/25/2013

God, I'm so glad that some DL posters are smart enough to own guns, and realize that they will eventually be necessary to defend ourselves from the fascists that run our government.

The people that think that they want to "control" them to "help" us are as stupid as the Germans that though the Nazis would protect them from the unfair, onerous and ridiculous regulations and reparations imposed by the "Allied Powers". Even today most people don't realize the "Allied Powers" were financed by the same people that financed the "Axis Powers" and Nazis- Prescott Bush being one of the leading financiers.

by Anonymousreply 10001/25/2013

R100 is blissfully unaware that Hilter didn't ban guns.

by Anonymousreply 10101/25/2013

"The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years."

So, "good Germans" were allowed to own guns, but Jews, and gays, and gypsies were forbidden. That sounds like a good idea.

"The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide)."

Uhhh, a proper understanding of economics and the way government corrupts "public works" means that the author has disproven his own thesis.

What a fucking moron.

by Anonymousreply 10201/25/2013

The right to bear arms! ! Fine. Eliminate all modern firepower and start manufacturing muskets. Thats what a gun was at the time. Hunters could still slaughter innocent animals. Enthusiasts can still shoot. But there could never be a mass killing like we see so much now. And good luck trying to rob a bank or store with one bullet in the chamber.

by Anonymousreply 10301/25/2013

"But there could never be a mass killing like we see so much now"

Iraq

Afghanistan

Syria

And now, Mali

Guns are protected to allow us to defend ourselves from evil government thugs.

by Anonymousreply 10401/25/2013

[quote] God, I'm so glad that some DL posters are smart enough to own guns, and realize that they will eventually be necessary to defend ourselves from the fascists that run our government.

Sweetie, if such a thing ever happened it would be the tea party nuts and rednecks you'd be fighting alongside against the big boogieman of government. Do you really think they won't go crazy? They'll probably shoot you in the face while they're drafting a constitution declaring NASCAR as the national sport.

by Anonymousreply 10501/25/2013

Unregistered gun = conspiracy to murder

'I forgot." "Just kept it around for sentiment. Never planned to use it. Didn't even know it was fully loaded."

by Anonymousreply 10601/26/2013

How many home invasions into occupied homes are there in the USA in any given year? Probably not a thousand. Save your hysterics for your fiction writing OP, because that is what you are, a fiction writer.

by Anonymousreply 10701/26/2013

You've been hypnotized by the Republican't party, op. Snap out of it!

by Anonymousreply 10801/26/2013

My family is composed of nervous nellies, space cases, jumpy drivers, and clumsy nerds. The idea of any one of them being armed is a scary one. People should emphatically not have access to guns if they are unsuited to them.

by Anonymousreply 10901/26/2013

R108-

If you are too stupid to see that the Rethuglicans are just as bad as the Demoncrats...well, publick edumashun has worked.

by Anonymousreply 11001/26/2013

"On the night before Christmas, when all through the house..."

by Anonymousreply 11101/26/2013

urf

by Anonymousreply 11201/27/2013

For every inflammatory story like freeper/OP's, there are dozens that end with the the "home-invadee" realizing he's just killed or maimed his own kid or grandma or wife.

by Anonymousreply 11301/27/2013

R113-

Proving how ignorant you are is so easy.

by Anonymousreply 11401/27/2013

This weekend in Orange County, California, thousands lined up and waited in the rain for three hours just to get in to a gun show.

by Anonymousreply 11501/27/2013

Gun sales targeted by students in Pasadena

January 26, 2013 | 6:42 pm

A student club at Pasadena High School has started a petition calling on school district officials to halt public spending on products from companies that manufacture or sell guns.

Tenth-graders Roxana Honowitz and Mia Hepner, leaders of the school’s Student Action Project club, said the group was inspired to take a stand after the Dec. 14 shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“We can say we support change and gun control, but it’s hypocritical if we also support places that sell guns by buying supplies from them,” said Roxana, 15.

Roxana is the daughter of Pasadena school board member Ed Honowitz.

Honowitz said that his daughter told him about the campaign, but that club members came up with the idea and drafted the online petition on their own.

by Anonymousreply 11601/27/2013

I am so sick of these actors and the PSAs regarding gun control.

When they give up their guns, I will give up mine.

Some of these actors were in the commercial after the Newtown, CT massacre. What the?

by Anonymousreply 11702/02/2013

what the WHAT, e117?

by Anonymousreply 11802/02/2013

Are you serious 118?

by Anonymousreply 11902/02/2013

So - guns are so important to have for self-defense, and that's why everyone needs a gun.

Okay - considering guns are primarily for defensive purposes, I guess I can assume that of the thousands of gun deaths that occur in the US each year, most of them were people shooting someone who was attacking them or breaking into the house. Right?

Yeah sure. Take out suicides and accidental shootings, and the vast, vast, vast majority of gun deaths were acts of aggressive violence.

So, despite the fact there are already hundreds of millions of guns out there, it sounds like guns as tools of aggression and violence are easily winning out over guns as means of self-defense. No contest.

And I suspect that even if all of us started walking around with a six-shooter strapped to our thigh, that wouldn't change.

by Anonymousreply 12002/02/2013

what is wrong with r117?

by Anonymousreply 12102/02/2013

Ah, I figured it out.

by Anonymousreply 12202/03/2013

Enough penis anxiety to keep an army of Freudian psychiatrists employed for years.

by Anonymousreply 12302/03/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!