Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad

[Guest]

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year

My first beef is with why someone would belive the ceneters for disease control and prevention on matters of violent crimes. I dont know how many kids dies each year as a result of guns, but I can tell the total amount which is a bit above 11,000 a year.

the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

I am not concerned with the validilty of this statement, im more concernened about the fact that you would want to be feared. If you are not feared then a criminal would be less likely to protect themself with a weapon (not fearing physical harm). If the criminal is not scared they are less likely to do something stupid, IE shooting first and askeing questions later.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

If they already have it then why would the amount of crime go up or down? nothing changed.

Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

Women are comforted by the fact that criminals can carry guns legally?

I'll leave one statistic for all the pro gun people. You are 43 times more likely to shoot a family member then an intruder. Why people will want to risk a family member for your TV or stereo is beyond me.

[Wha?]

At least people are getting their say, albeit horribly ignorant, self-serving, and risky.

weapon

(wp·n)
noun
1. An instrument of offensive or defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.

Sure, weapons can be used to defend, but if they aren't used to attack, there's no need to defend. Making it easy and legal to carry weapons around is outright asking for trouble. Just because the paperclip hasn't snapped yet doesn't mean it won't if it keeps getting bent back and forth.

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids
are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the
accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

*slaps forehead* Oh man do I feel stupid. I thought adults mattered too. But that would raise the number to 13,000 a year, and that isn't good for blissful ignorance.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

This is the most important part. Thanks to those 36 states and their inhabitants, the CDC can now successfully document what happens.

The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

Even though I'm sure they meant legal guns, it's obviously time to give up, seeing as there's a black market and all. Why go further when you can wuss out? Pfft. I tried to make microwave popcorn once, but 30 seconds just wasn't enough, so I stopped trying. Problem sovled.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

..and the civilians say the same thing, but about the criminals! Isn't that ironic? Both groups fear eachother because they both have guns! Ha! That's a riot.. It's especially funny because fear causes a decrease in shootings, and murder in self-defense causes less court appearances.

Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

There would only be an increase if there are people who would commit gun crimes if it was easier than it already was to get them. That can't be a significant number, considering the number of legal guns an individual can acquire.


::PostScript::
I found the opening line most interesting. The article that follows is a heavily spun anti-control piece. Now, I'm not sure how algebra works in the states, but up here, if you say A = B, B != C, therefore C = A, you're wrong. How can you start an anti-control article with

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents.

and not be fired?

Thanks to that, the whole thing reads <guns are bad. many kids die from guns annually><let's get rid of gun control>. Am I the only one who sees a problem there?

[Guest]

Those states have not always had those carry laws. They have only gotten them in the last decade. They have statistics from before and now.

Do you really think criminals will have any problem acquiring weapons...legal OR illegal if guns are banned?? Do you think criminals GO through the
background checks and waiting periods and training for carry permits?

At least you guys are responding.

I will post my new birthday present next month: my nice new .40 Smith & Wesson tactical. All i will need next is Wank's riot shield.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

They have statistics from before and now

Wha and I were the only ones who actually posted statistics.

Do you really think criminals will have any problem acquiring weapons...legal OR illegal if guns are banned??

I fail to see the relievance in legallity. They do have the ability to get their hands on firearms illegally usually because of the black market that wha brought up. If you dont hand out the amount of guns the supply of them goes down (less people able to obtain them) and subsequently less guns make it to the black market because of the fact that less people are obtaining them. Supply and demand.

All guns are handed out legally, they just get passed around illegally. Stop the flow of guns handed out legally and it will eventually stop them getting into the hands of criminals.

I remember an email joke that said since violence in youths is so high, we should hand out guns to each one of them and let them carry it around in schools. It would become much safer because everyone could defend themselves. I hope you all see the failed logic.

[Wha?]

Not banned, but controled. Background checks, a registry with balistics test results for every weapon, and their owners vital information, bans on all fully automated weapons and hollowpoint ammo, all keep huge gun crimes down. Why? Simply reducing access. Black market weapons would obviously be available, but your average thug isn't going to get those just to make his penis look bigger.

How are the "it won't be a perfect solution, therefore we should abandon the entire concept altogether" people not laughed out of town when they support the wars on terror and drugs? It's the same thing, a cause that won't yeild perfect results, and certainly not istantaneously. Instead of tweaking to a working point, why not just stop and claim it's for the greater good?

Then there's the cascade people. They honestly believe that something like adding safeties to guns is going to cause a total ban. How? Search me, I don't understand that kind of irrational fear. Of course, there's always the boolean logic that it's either total ban or no control at all. Sort of a "for us or agaisnt us" we're-too-inept-to-consider-options argument. Controling legal guns gives police more to work with when somebody gets shot. The unique rifle marks on bullets found at the scene could be tracked back to the gun owner with a simple stroll through an electronic database. Finding a slug of illegal caliber tells them to not bother with a large amount of information. Does that remove guns from peoples possession, or restrict rights regarding ownership of firearms? Waiting periods while a background check goes on allows any history of violent crimes to come up. Getting rid of that allows more people who shouldn't own a gun have one, which is a cornerstone of anti-control arguments: "to defend you and your family [from people who shouldn't have weapons but do]". Okay, so maybe it was just a burglar with a butterfly knife, but they aren't dangerous beyond arms length.

There will always be criminals, and there will always be violent crime. That's just the way some people turn out. By being paranoid of losing gun ownership, people are willing to justify giving them guns with "but we'll have guns with which to defend ourselves". The short answer is not if they shoot first. That's the simple fact about guns; only the one who shoots first wins. When everybody has a gun, and someone breaks into an occupied house, they're just going to sit around a corner and get the drop on the homeowner. Petty break-and-enters are never intentional while the house is occupied. Sure "for self-defense" sounds good now, but that's only while you win the hypothetical stand-off.

Having a gun for a sense of security is a fallacy. You are no more resistant to bullets, and are dangerously more gung-ho. In a home invasion I can see a gun being much needed leverage, but on a street? What if you get into a really bad fight with a significant other or spouse? An a-hole driver (or would everyone owning a gun elimiate road rage)? Where is the self-control limit? How many people would get too pissed to think about consequences, and how many others would shoot them? What about a couple sick people who grab some fully automatic rifles and decide to mow down the kids in a school when they come running out after they set off the fire alarm? I could do it tomorrow if there wasn't a ban on that kind of weaponry. With the afforementioned registry, I would get caught even if I did it with legal arms. But we can't have that, since it constitutes a constitutional breach.

[Guest]

In the Marines...they make you name your rifle. I'm naming my new pistol CAKE.:P

BTW...I know a well known ricocheter who is GREAT with handguns...but NEVER has
said anything about gun control....SPEAK UP YOU KNOW WHO!!!!:wub:

[Wha?]

I would be fine with everybody being able to own whatever if it weren't for people in general being so stupid. Personally I like all forms of weaponry (it's just cool. why, I have no idea), but I can easily do without if it means reducing the amount of death/injury. Anything in bad hands is dangerous, but weapons are tools designed to cause as much damage as possible. A sword is useless for day-to-day use, (though I'm sure someone could find something) anything you'd want to cut with the sword on a daily basis there's already a tool for it that's more practical. Ranged weapons are worse for alternate, passive uses. What I'm saying is, if you buy a gun, it's because you're going to shoot stuff. What said stuff is, well that's up to the person lining up the sights. I'm sure most people can handle not shooting things that aren't meant to be shot (ie. road signs), but a person can easily decide to kill their neighbour, or shoot animals out of season without a permit.

Think of gun control as a firewall, sure there are people who are determined and skilled enough to get past it, but it cuts down the number of people who will. Even if 99% of nutjobs can still get firearms, it's better than 100%, and it keeps misuse to a minimum until somebody comes along with a revelation and stamps it out completely.

The sore spot with most gun rights activists is they are no longer being allowed to fully pursue a hobby of theirs. However, instituting only legislation that allows quicker capture (like a registry) brings in the can of worms called "acceptable losses". Even if you catch all abusers within fifteen minutes, there are still things dying and stuff getting vandalized. That's why there are preventative measures. Not because 'they' are evil, freedom hating gun stealers.

Come to think of it, with proper regulations, shooting ranges and the like could be allowed more weapons than civilians without too much trouble.There would be a licence anywhere with a shooting range could apply for, allowing them to legally obtain weapons otherwise illegal to possess. That wouldn't be hard to implement at all, and it would at least provide enthusiasts a way to enjoy some of the more destructive firearms. If the manufacturers complain, a small surcharge could be tacked on the membership fee to compensate them for the lost business. Risk of organized theft can be reduced with more secure gun lockers.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

I'm thinking for the shooting ranges or target places that they should just sign out the guns to be used on the property. You would have security measures to help keep risk of nuts going and shooting people as targets. Also their would be no reason for civilians to have them in their homes (criminals can steal your gun from your home) and would reduce risk. Plus the more weapons that wha brought up.

SPEAK UP YOU KNOW WHO!!!!

and yes we all know who B)

I'm naming my new pistol CAKE

I'm honored, I'll name mine PIX on DM1 ^_^

[Guest]

LOL

[GRITS]

Ok PIX I am assuming you mean me :blsh:
Anonymity not everyone knows I am a marksman with a 38 or that I was a Southern Arizona Ranger when I lived in Arizona and had my Concealed Weapons license to carry a 4 shot derringer...guess more know now though:D

I have kept my thoughts on gun control to myself and personal correspondence because there always seems to be extremes and not as many borderline opinions but I am encouraged by wha? view. I stay clear of the NRA politics but I stay clear of most politics.
I think safety and common sense should always prevail in these situations....but then again I suffer from Pollyanna syndrom. I think a safety course should be required before you are given the privilege to carry a weapon...yeah I said privilege even if the founding fathers call it a right. When you have the ability to take another life it is not a right in my opinion. I disagree that if you reduce the amount of legal guns eventually the amount of illegal guns will decrease...I believe the price will just go up...remember prohibition...didn’t stop illegal hooch. It is not an all or nothing situation....while I think background checks are appropriate, they will not solve the problem of criminals getting guns....look how well the states have done with 'suspected terrorist' checks. I am not uncomfortable registering my weapons (btw my marine corps background leads me to say weapon...weapons are for fighting guns are for fun). I do think people who carry guns feel invincible or less vulnerable and that becomes a dangerous situation in conflict like road rage...but background checks are not going to tell you how someone would react in any specific situation...so not sure how much they will actually accomplish other than the blatant criminal trying to purchase.
If you have the right training before you purchase a weapon you will realize the first line of defense is to get yourself out of harms way…..run like hell out the closest exit…not aggressive violence.
There you go…my opinion…now you know why I don’t voice it often…I don’t really fit on either side of the issue very well. Guess that makes me a little eccentric but if you ask I will almost always give my opinion.

[Guest]

....silence......

She speaks......

Can you get a front parking space with that syndrome??

Damn...i forgot about prohibition and it's reverse effect it had; all the jukejoints and illegal traffic.


i will be taking these 2 classes next month:

Level I - Personal Protection Certification
This may be the most useful and exciting class you'll ever take. Our introductory, hands-on course will train you to become a competent and law abiding handgun owner. Especially suited for men and women who are new gun owners. In this class you'll learn:

Basic handgun usage
Firearm concealment
Proper maintenance
Legal responsibilities
Rapid draw Protective tactics
Safe storage
Best gun selection
Upon completion of this course, you'll receive a Certificate of Handgun Training, which is required by the Tennessee Department of Safety as part of your application for a gun permit.

Course Fee: $99. One eight-hour session or two four-hour sessions. Includes workbook, ammunition, range session, testing, certificate, and use of practice gun, safety glasses & hearing protection. If you want to bring your own handgun, please transport it unloaded.

Level II - Tactical Pistol Course

This course expands on the skills learned in the introductory class, introducing the following skills:

Drawing from a holster
Engaging multiple attackers
Close quarter defense techniques
Mental conditioning for confrontation
Shooting in low light
Course Fee: $150. One eight-hour session.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

I disagree that if you reduce the amount of legal guns eventually the amount of illegal guns will decrease...I believe the price will just go up...remember prohibition...didn’t stop illegal hooch

It is true that alchol will still stay if it is banned, and like you said the price of it will go up. Supply and demand. But they will be harder to obtain, if not because of the illegallity, because of the higher price. If any violent person wanted to get their hands on a firearm it will be more difficult to get it if its banned, maybe not much more, but a bit more. If the prices goes up, which it will, then the said criminal will have to work harder at getting the firearm (requireing more money) since criminals usually dont work very hard (if they did they would have an honest job, and crime is glorified as the easy way out) they will not want to work to obtain the money to get the firearm (legally or illegally) and will be more inclined to use a knife to hurt or rob someone. A knife would be safer (yet still very dangerous) then a gun, because you do have some time to react (vs no time of a bullet). Thats what I was trying to get at. There will still be illegal guns passed around, but there will be less.

look how well the states have done with 'suspected terrorist' checks

the good job the US is doing for terrorism will also make it very hard to get firearms into the country, if not better. You can spot a gun much more easily then a terrorist.

[Guest]

actually in prohibition...didn't alcohol comsumption go UP??

[[CAKE]anonymity]

actually in prohibition...didn't alcohol comsumption go UP??

I'd chalk that up to insufficent security measures and technology as well as the corruption. They practically bought their way into the country. I mean who wouldnt turn down one of those barrels of whiskey. Thats also assumeing the consumption went up. I think public saftey and crime to a cop or security guard would be much more important then a few ppl getting loaded.

[Guest]

And you don't think that 'corruption' would be involved if guns became illegal???
Guns are right up there with booze. They don't call it the ATF for nothing;)

[[CAKE]anonymity]

And you don't think that 'corruption' would be involved if guns became illegal???
Guns are right up there with booze.  They don't call it the ATF for nothing;)

No, i dont, i thought i had made that clear before. The cops and border security wouldnt be able to drink because they cant legally get the booze, so they would take bribes. If guns are illegal, why would they want them? cops have guns. The only issue here is will they still allow cops to carry firearms, if guns become illegall. Which isnt a stretch because it would give them an advantage, plus they are allowed to do other illegal things, IE assualt, assualt with a weapon, speeding.

You will also have to enlighten me on what ATF is.

[Guest]

Federal organization here in the US called Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms.

Someone gets caught makin moonshine....ATF investigates.

Someone gets caught illegally shipping guns....ATF.

Someone scamming taxes involved in smokes....ATF.


I really think that debating this with Canadians is like apples and oranges. This is NOT ANY dig on
Canada at all. They are our neighbor to the north. Crime in Canada is totally different than crime
in the US. I can understand how you would want to eliminate firearms. Canadians don't need them.
They don't have the drug problems we have; the gang violence we have; they don't have crackheads
carjacking people to steal their car for dope. The environment is definately apples and oranges. The
most dangerous thing to come out of Canada was Bryan Adams and Celine Dion.

We DO live in fear in parts of the US. I am paranoid everytime I go out at night to the store. This is the feeling in most urban cities. It comes down to this....there's NO way criminals are going to NOT have guns...CHRIST...they can make single shooters out of steel pipes and a nail. I refuse to NOT take the legal advantage of carrying a legal handgun, which I will be licensed to carry.

If you remember...Australia banned all handguns a few years back. They wanted to 'rid themselves of this scourge that plagues the United States". I wanted to see how well that policy did, so here's an article I found.

Posted by L.J. on December 24, 2003 at 19:09:50:

In Reply to: I can't hold my tongue any longer! posted by L.J. on December 24, 2003 at 18:59:50:


Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures


By Jon Dougherty

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new
international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall
in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the
list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most
categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in
the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had
higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995
figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and
Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent
victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed
by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary.
Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of
the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control
laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to
portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ...
offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that
year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says
CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the
population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also,
they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1
percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a
different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.



Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily.

Gday Mate:wacko:

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Ok, so the ATF is just an instutition amalgamated for simplicity. I dont see this proveing guns and booze are co-related at all. As far as crime being diffrent, its a toss up. Wha, rUsh, apex and I, we live in a city with 3 + million people. We are a big city, we're no LA or NY, but we are pretty big. As far as not knowing about crime, not knowing about drugs. I have had several drug dealers liveing in my basement for 10 months and the cops couldnt do jack. Dealers, criminals, walking in and out of my basement at will, with nothing to stop them walking into where my family was eating, or sleeping but a wooden door and one of these cheap bathroom door locks. I have had to live with that for 10 months. Doesnt seem so diffrent now does it?

[Guest]

a drug dealer is a pretty open definition. Hell...technically...I was a drug dealer in college. I sold
my friends some weed and 'cough' other stuff. The drug dealers that I'm talking about are
the ones with a mouth full of gold teeth, a hydraulic lift on the shocks on their Escalade and packing
automatic weapons; not a buncha burnout dopers. What were they dealing?

NO COUNTRY IS SAFE FROM CRIME. All I am saying is that we can't compare the extremes of crime and
the need for guns/gun control if we are comparing Canada and the US.

[Wha?]

What needs to be done is get people from both sides, and sit them down in a room and tell them to compromise. A total ban is unfair to the majority, which is responsible owners/collectors, and trashing all forms of regulation is too risky.

[Guest]

doesnt sound like a bad idea to me.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Heroin to name one thing. But since all i have is speculation, i really couldnt do anything about it and the cops needed a warrant. PIX, from my bedroom I could hear everything that was happening in each one of their lives. I would keep me awake more nights just knowing what was going on just one floor below me in my own house. You have to realize that my knowledge of the criminal mind doesnt come from reading books or leaning psychoanalytic theroies, it comes from liveing with about 5 of them at any one time, for 10 months. If my family had any guns in the house someone in my family would have taken that gun downstairs and killed someone or themselves. You think these are a group of teens selling weed? or someone makeing a few bucks at a concert? This is an entire drug cartel from within my home. From any given point they had at least 10 people working in this ring. It wasnt uncommon to see cop cars outside my house during those months. One day I came home to a forensics team working in my backyard. A few hours before hand there was a chase through the streets of my neighbourhood.

Crime isnt diffrent between our cultures. Canadians and Americans are more similar then Canadians care to admit. That is why we are determined to try to distinguish ourselves every chance we get. We have the same drugs, same gangs (oh yeah Hell's angels is Canadian), same problems. The biggest weed bust in north america happened 2 hours north of where I live. Crime is crime.

[kermit]

if it was your own house, why were they not arrested for trespassing?

[Wha?]

The ringleader was a tennant, and those are virtually impossible to get rid of.

[Guest]

jeeze....i honestly wonder how different it could have been if your family had owned a shotgun
or a pistol...and someone had walked into that drug pit chambering rounds saying..."GET THE F OUT OF HERE!!!
or I will blow your heroin using asses to hell. One of the most scary sounds to a bad guy is to hear that shotgun
shell rechamber.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

I am glad we dont, because someone would have gone down their, and if its so easy to obtain, they would most likely have it as well. A firefight inside your own home is something you want to avoid. If one of us where to die I know everyone in my family would much rather have criminals in my basement rather then haveing a funeral. If we were to win the said firefight, one of us would have been in jail for a long time. The murder would have been premeditated and therefore looked at as 1st degree. In the long run the situation would have been much worse if we had a gun.

[Guest]

The key legal term you would have to remember is "feared for my life". If you are in a life/death situation and you are in fear for your life, then
you have the right to do whatever possible to protect it. Having heroin dealers/users in your tennent is DEFINATELY a fear for your life situation.
It would ONLY be premeditated if you would have actually spoke with others and told them of your plans. What you think and plan in your own head is no ones business till technology finds a way to extract that.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

They just have to have evidence stateing that it was premeditated. Technically you wouldnt be fearing for your life if you walked down to them, if they came upstairs to you then you might have a case. The only thing that we could comfort ourselves was that if they layed a finger on us they would be in jail so fast there heads would be spinning. They use my house as a place to live in for as cheap as humanly possible, they dont want to end up in jail, and that is what we had to keep telling ourselves.

Some people wonder why i dont just call the cops and say what hes dealing. Since we have no evidence, its their words against ours, and thats hardly enough to press charges.

[Guest]

...and if they find out you narc'd on them, then you would have to watch your back.....I've been there before.