1
   

SHUD BURGLARY VICTIMS BE HELPLESS ?

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 08:34 pm
We see that the predator in Elizabeth Smart's case
and in
Polly Klass' case broke into the house at nite.

In both cases, the victims were defenseless.
Each of the predators had a knive in each crime.
With the knives, they terrorized witnesses
into compliance n silence.

I wish that Polly were holding a .45 cal. revolver,
when Richard Davis broke in with his knife,
fresh from getting his prison parole a few hours b4.
Then maybe the "good guy" wud have won,
and Davis wud be dead.

Too many Americans r not prepared to defend
their existences. If we all were, burglary
wud end; burglars wud see their potential victims'
houses as death traps for criminals.

Nearly all of crime victimization cud be ended
if the future vitims were known to be well armed.
That is proven in the State of Vermont,
with NO gun laws and a very, very low rate of crime,
year after year after every year. True also of
Switzerland, where the populace is heavily armed,
and work out at gunnery ranges, with (inter alia)
fully automatic rifles and submachineguns, etc.
Crime in Switzerland is not much above zero,
consistently, year after year, after decade
after decade.



Q.E.D.: the proliferation of life saving emergency
equipment ( i.e., guns ) n abundant training with them
= more personal security.


ANTI-gun laws are an abomination.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,745 • Replies: 49
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 08:37 pm
Shud omsigdavid keep on beating the same old horse endlessly?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 09:06 pm
You might want to review Marc's statements about guns on the Polly Klaas Foundation website. I don't think he would be too happy about your exploitation of the murder of his daughter for a purpose he does not agree with and advises against for the safety of children.

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg_cs_gunsafety.htm
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 11:38 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Shud omsigdavid keep on beating the same old horse endlessly?



NO. All laws that limit, or in any way interfere with the
possession of guns, shud be ENDED, in accordance with
the Supreme Law of the Land, INSTEAD.


Its like Smokey the Bear; he shud not shut up.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 12:57 am
Butrflynet wrote:
You might want to review Marc's statements about
guns on the Polly Klaas Foundation website. I don't think he would be too happy
about your exploitation of the murder of his daughter for a purpose he
does not agree with and advises against for the safety of children.

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg_cs_gunsafety.htm


I checked your link:
his statistics are absolute nonsense.

This came as little surprize because the anti-gun movement
either tells outright factual lies, or very grossly distorts the truth
LIKE SAYING that some huge number of children die each year from
gunshot wounds, without telling u that they are counting everyone
as a child
up to n including age 24, so that young criminals in
gang wars over drug turf, as well as youthful police officers,
and young soldiers at war, are included in the count,

or

in saying that annually,
some great number of people are killed in accidents
when they have guns in the home,
withholding the information that they are including folks
who had guns at home and
who were killed in traffic accidents, or while swimming,
or were struck by lightning,
or who fell when climbing mountains, while they had guns at home.
They keep getting caught at it, but
they just don't stop doing that. As liberals, truth means nothing to them.

Your link encouraged: "Stress that guns used on television are not real."

They certainly ARE real. Bruce Lee's son was killed while filming a movie.
His murderer loaded a live round into the gun used against him.
A few days ago, I bought a .32 cal. pistol that was purportedly used
in the movie "The Road to Perdition". OK, so admittedly movies are not TV,
but its the same in principle, and they CERTAINLY USE FUNCTIONAL GUNS
with blank rounds on TV.


I blame the "gun control" philosophy's dangerous n foolish
concept that safety is to be found in helplessness for those girls' untimely demise.

If only ONE of Polly's fellows, or Polly herself, had put up a gun against
Davis with his knife, Polly wud be alive now.
Instead, she n her companions allowed themselves to be bound up,
committing their lives into Davis' discretion for him to decide whether
to rape n murder. He decided.

How FAST he'd have fled,
if any of them had even SCRATCHED him with a gunshot.
It shud be pointed out, regardless of Marc Klass' anti-gun fanaticism,
that if there were not even one gun in all America,
the Polly Klass crime wud still have been committed with the knife
that Richard Davis actually used. If the victims had even one gun,
she'd have been left in perfect health. I blame the "gun control"
hysterical absence of reasoning.

I acquired my first gun at age 8.
Practiced a lot with it. Got fairy good, as were the other kids
in my neighborhood in Phoenix, Arizona a few decades ago.
Never any trouble; no complaints of any person of any age
exhibiting bad manners with firearms; revolvers, rifles n pistols,
but we made our own guns ANYWAY, not as good as commerically
manufactured guns, but functional.

More people were killed by Ted Kennedy's car
than by any of our guns.



Its not my job to make Marc Klass happy. Its OK to ridicule his reasoning.
Its OK to object to the fact that all of the victims were HELPLESS,
such that with just a knife, Davis had power to rape n murder.

This shud not continue.
Schools shud have gun safety classes, and in the spirit of today's
seatbelt laws, people shud be encouraged to always be armed in
their own defense. Those of America's states with NO gun laws
have the least crime. Those with the most severe gun laws have the worst crime.

I wish I cud reach back thru time and space
and PUT A GUN INTO THE HAND of Polly Klass as Davis was breaking in.

SECURITY IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN HELPLESSNESS
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:22 am
edgarblythe wrote:
Shud omsigdavid keep on beating the same old horse endlessly?


Looks that way Edgar <sigh>
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:27 am
What the hell is "Shud" . . . is that supposed to be a word?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 05:29 am
The horse surrenders!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:18 am
Setanta wrote:
What the hell is "Shud" . . . is that supposed to be a word?




YES. Any non-fonetic spelling (e.g. : "should" or "could" or "though")
is inefficient n thus is stupid. Supporting inefficiency is stupid.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:21 am
Montana wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Shud omsigdavid keep on beating the same old horse endlessly?


Looks that way Edgar <sigh>



The status quo deserves to be free of neither challenge nor torment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:54 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Setanta wrote:
What the hell is "Shud" . . . is that supposed to be a word?




YES. Any non-fonetic spelling (e.g. : "should" or "could" or "though")
is inefficient n thus is stupid. Supporting inefficiency is stupid.



In which case, this sentence of yours is full of stupid inefficiency. Stupidity a forte of yours, OSD? You seem to be awfully well-informed . . .
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:59 am
Just a comment on the gun statistics. It is true that many children are killed by other children with firearms. It is also true that the "under 19" stats include suicide by firearm. Most teenaged boys use a gun to commit suicide. If a firearm is not available they resort to hanging.

I agree that children should not be hiding guns under their pillows. However, I also agree that gun controls laws do little to deter criminals. They are already commiting a crime with illegal firearms. People like me register guns. People that commit armed robbery do not. No amount of law is going to change that.

The answer? I'm not sure, but those murder statistics occur in the years that gun control laws have been at their strictest. All I know is that it is near impossible for me to get a license to carry, but if a 15 year old gets caught with an illegal firearm, well, he gets a 6 month suspended sentence - a sentence that doesn't matter because it's just a month in DYS custody and then he goes back home.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 12:40 pm
Setanta wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Setanta wrote:
What the hell is "Shud" . . . is that supposed to be a word?




YES. Any non-fonetic spelling (e.g. : "should" or "could" or "though")
is inefficient n thus is stupid. Supporting inefficiency is stupid.



In which case, this sentence of yours is full of stupid inefficiency. Stupidity a forte of yours, OSD? You seem to be awfully well-informed . . .



At the moment, I don't wish to set forth the whole
anti-inefficiency argument (including the child abuse of teaching,
or torturing innocent children into spelling the rong way,
unlike the Spanish, to whom spelling comes NATURALLY,
n effortlessly, since its fonetic). By violating the inefficient part,
the non-fonetic part, of the orthografic paradime, I call attention
to the errors of efficiency which most other Americans perpetuate.

Its as if we r all riding in a car, one of whose tires is flat.
I argue for changing out the flat tire, whereupon I'm met with
a host of acrimonious arguments in opposition,
saying that we've been driving on 3 round wheels for a long time,
we r accustomed to that now, n that I shud not be so radical.

I continue to argue the benefits of hav ing 4 round tires,
knowing that MY side will win; manifest destirny,
because the youth of my species will TIRE of dragging useless
dead weght, for no pay, forever.
However, if I presently OVER DO it, then people will not
understand what the hell I'm talking about, so I need to
continue some degree of non-fonetic English.
I don't pretend to be an expert
on exactly the best way to handle each word:
enuf that we recognise n attack the general problem.


I will win. U will lose.
Logical efficiency WILL prevail
0 Replies
 
Heeven
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 12:50 pm
I really think that if someone breaks into your home (or attempts to) and the homeowner injures them intentionally/unintentionally, that the burglar not have any rights to sue. While in a criminal act, the criminals rights should be waived and they have no grounds to blame anyone but themselves for anything bad that might happen to them.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 12:55 pm
Perhaps we should shoot all those teachers who abuse children by making them spell correctly. The kids could bring firearms to school and plunk away at any teacher who makes 'em spell.

That would learn 'em!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 01:22 pm
Sugar wrote:
Just a comment on the gun statistics. It is true that many children are killed by other children with firearms. It is also true that the "under 19" stats include suicide by firearm. Most teenaged boys use a gun to commit suicide. If a firearm is not available they resort to hanging.

I agree that children should not be hiding guns under their pillows. However, I also agree that gun controls laws do little to deter criminals. They are already commiting a crime with illegal firearms. People like me register guns. People that commit armed robbery do not. No amount of law is going to change that.

The answer? I'm not sure, but those murder statistics occur in the years that gun control laws have been at their strictest. All I know is that it is near impossible for me to get a license to carry, but if a 15 year old gets caught with an illegal firearm, well, he gets a 6 month suspended sentence - a sentence that doesn't matter because it's just a month in DYS custody and then he goes back home.



Just a short comment (for the moment, anyway):

Anyone and everyone has the moral, natural right to defend his life.
There is no such thing as forfeiture of your natural right of self-defense,
because of age nor legal status.

For instance, I saw on TV where some young boy was dragged away
n killed by a massive dog. It is morally repugnant to say (in theory):
"NO, u may not have a gun to kill that dog because u r too young.

Just let nature take its course [nibble, chomp, chomp, gulp],
or if u can get to a fone, call 911,
while he's munching on u and deciding which part of u tastes best."


I remember a story told by Jean Shepard:
He decided to visit an old Army pal
who'd moved to the Northwest.
When Shepard arrived, his friend was absent.
He was met by his pal's wife n 12 year old son,
who lived in the woods.

The kid offered to take him to his favorite fishing hole in their Jeep.
He brings out the necessary equipment n throws a .45 cal 1911 automatic
into the front seat n drives away. Upon their return, the kid's mother is
upset: she yells at him:
"Bobby, did u take your father's .45 automatic out there with u ??"

The kid looks down sheepishly n says:
"Yeah, Mom, I did."

In distress, she yells, "Bobby, how many times do I have to tell u ?
U NEVER go out there with anything less than a .3O-3O !!"

She did not approve of her progeny being eaten by large carnivores.


Is HUMAN depredation (by criminals) distinct in principle ???????
I doubt it.

Suppose that the alleged "Queen of Mean"
Leona Helmsley, is the victim of burglary or street robbery:
shud she be told: "NO ! U have been convicted of a federal felony,
to wit: tax evasion. U have no right to defend yourself.
FORGET ABOUT "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS". That does not
include u. U r not equal."



Suppose a burglar is making a habit of breaking into the residence
of the elderly. Is it morally acceptable to instruct them:
u r too old to harm the burglar. U will probably die of old age soon,
whereas he is much younger n so has longer to live,
hence u must tolerate his intrusions n impositions upon your person
n property ??????? How about that ?????
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 01:29 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Perhaps we should shoot all those teachers who abuse children by making them spell correctly.
The kids could bring firearms to school and plunk away at any teacher who makes 'em spell.

That would learn 'em!



I brought an M-1 Carbine to English class n field stripped it
for show n tell. Showed how they function; got a good grade,
but I did not make the teacher spell correctly.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 01:33 pm
Heeven wrote:
I really think that if someone breaks into your home (or attempts to) and the homeowner injures them intentionally/unintentionally, that the burglar not have any rights to sue. While in a criminal act, the criminals rights should be waived and they have no grounds to blame anyone but themselves for anything bad that might happen to them.



YEAH. So stipulated.

Violent RECIDIVISTS shud be removed from the North American Continent
with sneaking back in prohibited on pain of death.
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 01:53 pm
I do not live in the woods. I live in the middle of a very large and violent city. Any 10 year old who is walking around the street packing a gun is a problem. As far as a child having a gun to shoot an intruder - I also disagree. Most children do not have the maturity not to react too quickly because they are scared. If I walked into my son's room late at night, I wouldn't be confident that he would have the wherewithall not to react to quickly (just waking up startled) and not shoot me.

In your story, it should have been the adult's responsibility, not the child's. In areas where gun violence is high, the large wildlife population is low.

Most children in my city do not die from vicious dog attacks. They die from being shot. No one in Roxbury is going to get eaten by a black bear. They do, however, get gunned down by 14 year olds.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 03:09 pm
Sugar wrote:
I do not live in the woods. I live in the middle of a very large and violent city. Any 10 year old who is walking around the street packing a gun is a problem. As far as a child having a gun to shoot an intruder - I also disagree. Most children do not have the maturity not to react too quickly because they are scared. If I walked into my son's room late at night, I wouldn't be confident that he would have the wherewithall not to react to quickly (just waking up startled) and not shoot me.

In your story, it should have been the adult's responsibility, not the child's. In areas where gun violence is high, the large wildlife population is low.

Most children in my city do not die from vicious dog attacks. They die from being shot. No one in Roxbury is going to get eaten by a black bear. They do, however, get gunned down by 14 year olds.



Which ever city u live in,
surely most of the kids do NOT die from gunshot wounds.
Indeed, the National Safety Council records more kids annually DROWNING
than dying from gunshots.

Note also, that of kids who DID get shot,
most of them were shot by adults endeavoring to rob or kill
the kid or someone near him (like his dad) or an
ambient gang member, at war over disputed drug turf.


As to the aforesaid fishing trip,
kids have gone fishing alone since before the USA
was brought into existence. Shepherd did not claim to be a better shot.

Your post displays naked prejudice
against the minds of kids. Such problems are not found
in Vermont nor Alaska, which have no gun laws.
Growing up in Arizona, from the age of 8,
I was possessed of guns that I bought and others that I MADE,
in common with other kids of the neighborhood,
but over the years, we had no trouble.

Contrast that with the armed hijinx of the NY City Police,
who, among other things, celebrated a young officer's birthday
in his basement, commemorating the event photographically,
clowning with the birthday boy,
including aiming cocked revolver at his head, while posing,
thereby effecting an accidental encephalectomy,
whereupon there ensued an energetic MASS EXODUS of the boys in blue.
(taken from the NY Daily News)

A child has as much right to survive a predatory event as an adult does.
The right to live is not age specific.
Before arming oneself, he shud learn proper safe handling of guns.

I remember seeing on TV where a 7 year old boy was innocently
riding his bike, when he was grabbed by a pervert,
who cut his throat, cut off his penis, and left him for dead.
The victim survived.

I JUST CANNOT SEE TELLING AMERICA'S YOUTH:
"Sorry, but u have to put up with that sort of thing,
because of your age." The answer is in EMPOWERING each citizen
with gun safety education in school, along with math and swimming.
We must bear in mind that Man has achieved domination of this
planet by use of tools; we are a toolmaking species.
We must have the tool that's necessary for each job before us,
including defense of our lives n property.


The 2nd Amendment is not age specific.
It simply deprives all governments of any authority
to interfere with the citizens' possession of guns.

The 14th Amendment offers "equal protection of the laws."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SHUD BURGLARY VICTIMS BE HELPLESS ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 04:34:40