'cause in Texas potted plant purloiners are legitimate targets

[Father Heathen]

If the robbers know everyone has guns, they'll just bring their guns. *shrug*

But robbers will bring their guns, regardless. And logically, it would be better that a potential victim have equal ground rather then be at a disadvantage.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the robbers know everyone has guns, they'll just bring their guns. *shrug*

I don't buy this unsupported hypothetical scenario.
I know criminals....they generally try to avoid danger.

Eta: they do target what they perceive to be an easy target but that's not the same as being one. And obviously, Texas and their gun fetish attitude still has crime.

If some measure can reduce crime, then it has value.
Nothing we can do will eliminate it anyway.

 

[Drolefille]

But robbers will bring their guns, regardless. And logically, it would be better that a potential victim have equal ground rather then be at a disadvantage.

Not really, they don't always because the charge is higher. Hence why people walk into convenienceit stores and getyou scared out bya a gun. The ones with guns will shoot you before you pull yours. Victims with guns are still victims.

Regardless we have more crime here than gunless countries, not less. And armingI people doesn't make crime go away. I just get real sick of the stupid gun talk. I work we people who carry guns for a living and they lack this childish ****** mentality that I see from both my clients and people who talk about guns on the internet.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't buy this unsupported hypothetical scenario.
I know criminals....they generally try to avoid danger.

If some measure can reduce crime, then it has value.
Nothing we can do will eliminate it anyway.

You assume it reduces crime.

And it's what the criminals tells me happens. I see them after the prison part.

 

[Revoltingest]

You assume it reduces crime.

In some cases, it does.
But ignoring the general case, if I can improve my odds against bad guys by being armed, then that's worth doing.

And it's what the criminals tells me happens. I see them after the prison part.

And you believe criminals? Geeze....yer trusting!
But you raise a question.
If fear of violent resistance is ineffective because it only motivates criminals to arm up, then what purpose is there to armed cops, security guards, secret service, etc?
I speculate that deep down in their hearts, even the most touchy feely left leaning peacenik believes that the threat of violent defense deters violent offense.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not really, they don't always because the charge is higher. Hence why people walk into convenienceit stores and getyou scared out bya a gun. The ones with guns will shoot you before you pull yours. Victims with guns are still victims.

Regardless we have more crime here than gunless countries, not less. And armingI people doesn't make crime go away. I just get real sick of the stupid gun talk. I work we people who carry guns for a living and they lack this childish ****** mentality that I see from both my clients and people who talk about guns on the internet.

I don't think anyone here claimed having guns makes crime go away, but it does deter people. Usually, criminals use a gun to intimidate people and get compliance rather than actually intending to fire it. Most will avoid a situation if they think they might actually get shot at. Also, crime and violence are psychological and sociological. It isn't instilled by inanimate objects. And while gun-fetishism is childish (but no honest person would equate it by default with supporting 2nd amendment rights), the emotional, knee-jerk reactions and squeamishness toward guns is equally childish.

You mention clients. Out of curiosity, what business do you provide?

 

[Drolefille]

In some cases, it does.
But ignoring the general case, if I can improve my odds against bad guys by being armed, then that's worth doing.

And you believe criminals? Geeze....yer trusting!
But you raise a question.
If fear of violent resistance is ineffective because it only motivates criminals to arm up, then what purpose is there to armed cops, security guards, secret service, etc?
I speculate that deep down in their hearts, even the most touchy feely left leaning peacenik believes that the threat of violent defense deters violent offense.

Other countries handle things quite differently. Why do you assume this way is superior, where is the data to back it up?

And you might increase your odds by having a gun, or you might escalate a situation by waving it about.

And peacenick? Really? The USSR has gone and fell man, let it go.

I don't think anyone here claimed having guns makes crime go away, but it does deter people. Usually, criminals use a gun to intimidate people and get compliance rather than actually intending to fire it. Most will avoid a situation if they think they might actually get shot at. Also, crime and violence are psychological and sociological. It isn't instilled by inanimate objects. And while gun-fetishism is childish (but no honest person would equate it by default with supporting 2nd amendment rights), the emotional, knee-jerk reactions and squeamishness toward guns is equally childish.

You mention clients. Out of curiosity, what business do you provide?

This is generally true that guns can be a deterrant, that doesn't mean I think it's cool to shoot someone for trespassing as it is legal to do in some states. But as you note, it won't eliminate crime, it just changes it, and eventually it will escalate it, just as vests lead to armor piercing rounds for the cop killers. Guns don't cause crime, but they don't solve it, not even for an individual - and especially it doesn't protect you from the spouse, the friend and so on, the people you thought you could trust.

Of course bot sides are equally childish. I support people who want to own guns to own them, but not to carry them onto a college campus. I work with parole agents daily, they're carrying all the time, and many hunt as well, but they don't have the attitude you see from the typical internet tough guy on the issue.

I work for a private company that contracts with the state to provide anger management, s/a, cognitive behavioral treatment and general case management to parolees. They lie, a lot, but they let truth out too. It's my job to find that. It's an interesting and maddening job

 

[Revoltingest]

Other countries handle things quite differently. Why do you assume this way is superior, where is the data to back it up?

Other countries have different situations.
I don't claim that our approach should be universally applied.

And you might increase your odds by having a gun, or you might escalate a situation by waving it about.

No, I wouldn't wave it about. Foolish that would be, eh?
You might drive drunk & run your car into a crowd of innocent people too. Would you?

And peacenick? Really? The USSR has gone and fell man, let it go.

I hadn't even mentioned them, so to say "let it go" is an odd admonition.

This is generally true that guns can be a deterrant, that doesn't mean I think it's cool to shoot someone for trespassing as it is legal to do in some states. But as you note, it won't eliminate crime, it just changes it, and eventually it will escalate it, just as vests lead to armor piercing rounds for the cop killers. Guns don't cause crime, but they don't solve it, not even for an individual - and especially it doesn't protect you from the spouse, the friend and so on, the people you thought you could trust.

To say it will eventually escalate is one opinion. I differ.
Virtually all choices have pros & cons. I prefer to be armed than not.

Of course bot sides are equally childish. I support people who want to own guns to own them, but not to carry them onto a college campus. I work with parole agents daily, they're carrying all the time, and many hunt as well, but they don't have the attitude you see from the typical internet tough guy on the issue.

Campuses essentially advertise that they're gun free zones....no one will use one in self defense. That message has a downside.
There's a real question about who should carry & who shouldn't, but I see no reason that I should be defenseless at a university, yet can carry at a Starbucks or Wallmart.
We should note that government types (like your parole agents) ain't so safe either....
Federal agent opened fire during job discussion *| ajc.com

I work for a private company that contracts with the state to provide anger management, s/a, cognitive behavioral treatment and general case management to parolees. They lie, a lot, but they let truth out too. It's my job to find that. It's an interesting and maddening job

I've hired cops & criminals over the years.
Their perspectives are interesting & illuminating.
One of the cops was worse than the criminals.

 

[Drolefille]

Don't know anyone who uses the word peacenik, I was teasing you about it and calling you old in what was intended to be a joking way.

You're most free to be armed, as I'm free to be disgusted at the dehumanization of people, yes even criminals. The whole idea that someone is defenseless on a college campus is kind of silly, IMO and I'd rather leave it in the hands of campus cops, than in the hands of drunk college students. When they can stop falling off balconies and vandalizing statues when drunk, they can work on owning a gun. Too hard for campus life and too dangerous for campus security (and for domestic abuse victims).

As for escalation, if the crime isn't going to go away, which I'm confortable assuming it won't because we'll have all the causes still around, then escalation is the necessary consequence.

Individually, you might not wave it about, but what exactly are the odds of you solving anything with it? Seems like a security blanket to me. Which is fine, but someone armed at Virginia tech during thata tragedy, without police training, would have been at least as likely to shoot a bystander, make themselves a target and get shot, or make the police (or anther bystander with a gun, right?) Think you're one of the baddies. There just isn't that save the day moment I see glory hounds claim they'd manage. You are not likely one of them, but they are the loudest ones claiming how guns would have changed things.

I try to be realistic. Guns are tools. They are tools to kill people, but they aren't magic crime stoppers.
(And you still need data to support that it works as a deterrent). Criminals have guns too. And in any given situation, what the hostage specialists will tell you, is that deescalating is far preferrable to escalating. Ending it would be best, but good luck. And hope no one else gets hurt for your attempt.

 

[JMorris]

Door hangers beware. My doorknob is private property!

 

[Kathryn]

I only have one question: what's going on in Texas? It seems to be a unique place quite unlike anything else in the States. And this coming from someone who lives in the Deep South. Things there are...different.

I grew up mostly in the deep South and moved to Texas about twenty years ago. Odd thing is - Texans think they are Southern. They do have some traits that are generally Southern. For instance, their speech pattern (a slower sort of drawl, a lot of their foods and beverages (sweet iced tea, anyone?), their distrust of "city slickers" and "Yankees," and their penchant for pickup trucks - which really are often a necessity because of their lifestyle, so don't make fun of the trucks!

They are also friendly and open - but this is where they differ greatly from their neighbors to the east. Their friendliness is not as accommodating as other Southerners. What I mean is that they are pleasant, and if you truly need help, a true Texan will drop everything they're doing to help you. BUT - if you're just being lazy, or sorry, or expecting someone to pick up your slack, Texans in general have a BS monitor that goes off and hey...you're on your own. Their brand of "friendly" is stouter and more cussedly independent. I guess what I'd say is that they are more skeptical and have a more wry sense of humor.

They also have a very low tolerance level for disrespect and rudeness.

[youtube]WEwADbas7L0[/youtube]
Lonesome Dove - Call fights with Army Scout - YouTube

"I hate rude behavior in a man - won't tolerate it."

They still say "Yes m'am" and the men still take their families to church on Sunday mornings. Men open doors for women. If you're driving through Texas and you see a funeral procession coming, you will notice that every driver - from 18 wheelers to motorcyclists - will pull over and stop on the side of the road till the last car passes. If the funeral is accompanied by the Patriot Guard motorcyclists (veterans' funerals), most people will even get out of their vehicles and stand beside them at attention or with their hands over their hearts.

If you go to a shooting range, you will most likely see a very active mixture of all ages and genders. If you're a burglar, you're just as likely to get shot by a grandma as you are by a man.

Don't mess with Texas.

 

[Kathryn]

You assume it reduces crime.

And it's what the criminals tells me happens. I see them after the prison part.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not guns "reduce crime." I don't carry a gun to reduce crime and I don't carry a gun to perpetrate crime. I carry a gun to level the playing field and to protect myself and my family.

As I've mentioned on threads in the past, the mere presence of a gun has deterred crime three times for my family - once for my dad in a parking lot in Atlanta, Georgia, once for my mom as three thugs tried to break into our house in rural Georgia, and once for me on a lonely rural road in Texas as three guys in a pickup truck stopped me in the middle of the road and began moving toward me. In all three cases, all we had to do was raise our gun for the perps to turn tail and take off. We didn't even have to point the gun at them - they just had to actually see that we had a gun.

Furthermore, I am often alone for weeks at a time due to my husband's type of work. We have an alarm system that would raise the dead if it went off, but if someone was brazen enough to get past that, and my two 70 pound dogs, they've got an unpleasant surprise in store by the time they get to that master bedroom. I sleep better at night knowing I'm protected. We live in a good neighborhood, and we've never been broken into, but I am not so naive that I don't know that if someone was casing our house, it would be obvious when my husband leaves and I'm alone. Also, I'm a bank manager and that also makes me a target.

I pity the fool who would actually try to get to me though. I might not win, but I won't be an easy conquest!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Long ago we used to hang thieves
Then we transported them
Nothing has ever stopped thievery.
The CERTAINTY of getting caught seems to reduce it,

If you shoot a thief in the UK you would certainly spend a few years in Jail.
Shooting a thief is disproportionate and illegal.

 

[Kathryn]

Long ago we used to hang thieves
Then we transported them
Nothing has ever stopped thievery.
The CERTAINTY of getting caught seems to reduce it,

If you shoot a thief in the UK you would certainly spend a few years in Jail.
Shooting a thief is disproportionate and illegal.

Let's talk about breaking and entering in general - not the potted plant scenario.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, how am I supposed to know what they have in mind to do? Should I stop them and have a conversation?

"Excuse me - are you here to steal my TV and my laptop, or do you have something more violent in store for me?"

Sorry - if you break into my house, you're getting shot at and probably hit.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems kind of juvenile to shoot a potted plant thief. Like something an 11 year old boy would imagine was just, fair, and proportionate.

It also seems a bit cowardly to shoot the thief in the back while he was running away. But I imagine there are people who are so low they could be proud of doing that.

 

[Drolefille]

Let's talk about breaking and entering in general - not the potted plant scenario.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, how am I supposed to know what they have in mind to do? Should I stop them and have a conversation?

"Excuse me - are you here to steal my TV and my laptop, or do you have something more violent in store for me?"

Sorry - if you break into my house, you're getting shot at and probably hit.

But changing the topic changes the complaint. Self defense is something else entirely. Self defense when you're in the house and the guy is stealing your plants is not self defense at all. The UK has different laws, obviously, but by changing the tact you're avoiding the thing that we see as the problem: the death penalty for theft along with the dehumanization of the thief.

 

[Revoltingest]

But changing the topic changes the complaint. Self defense is something else entirely. Self defense when you're in the house and the guy is stealing your plants is not self defense at all. The UK has different laws, obviously, but by changing the tact you're avoiding the thing that we see as the problem: the death penalty for theft along with the dehumanization of the thief.

I agree that death to the plant thief is way too harsh.
An arse full of rock salt is more befitting.
Then it becomes an edifying experience.

 

[Drolefille]

I agree that death to the plant thief is way too harsh.
An arse full of rock salt is more befitting.
Then it becomes an edifying experience.

You don't shoot a gun without assuming it is loaded with live ammo and intending to kill your target.

 

[Badran]

It seems kind of juvenile to shoot a potted plant thief. Like something an 11 year old boy would imagine was just, fair, and proportionate.

It also seems a bit cowardly to shoot the thief in the back while he was running away. But I imagine there are people who are so low they could be proud of doing that.

I completely agree. I find this crazy and disturbing to be honest. While i would understand a person freaking out and simply shooting the person who has broken into their home for example, i still find the idea of being 'okay' with the concept generally to be disturbing.

That is, the idea that its acceptable to shoot a person just because they're trying to steal from you. I find it quite shameful that the homeowner in this case will not be charged with anything. To me what he did was criminal. Not only did he overreact (by deciding to shoot right away at the thief), but he kept shooting at the guy even while he was already fleeing. That it seems, is simply an attempt from his perspective, to punish the guy, not defend himself. And his supposed punishment in this case was completely unfitting to the crime, which is something he should be liable for in my view.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't shoot a gun without assuming it is loaded with live ammo and intending to kill your target.

That is one view.
Others might prefer less-than-lethal methods.

Personally, I favor your approach.
To shoot is a very very last resort to avoid danger.