Question on mentally challenged thieves

Discussion in 'Survival & Sustenance Living Forum' started by Hawaianhamster, Jun 30, 2009.

  1. Hawaianhamster

    Hawaianhamster New Member

    3
    0
    0
    Hello,

    I am doing a speech on the effects of gun control in terms of safety/crime. I have everything ready to go, except for one issue that a friend of mine brought up. Even though guns may prevent some thieves from entering homes, what if there is the occasional thief that is not in the right state of mind and/or desperate enough to outweigh the risks of their lives with survival? They may bring guns as well and when you pull out your gun, they might shoot you. Is there any psychology study on this matter, or anything to refute this claim?

    Thanks for reading,
    Jordan
     
  2. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    I think before we respond to this, we need to know who you are doing the research paper for and we need to know your opinion on gun control as a whole.

    This is not a website prone to helping the Left with their Disarming The Citizen agenda.

    Please provide more intel with a PM and we will happily assist you, until then I am going to temp. lock the thread out of the best interest and our views.

    PLEASE PM ME WITH YOUR AGENDA / PROJECT SCOPE

    JD
     

  3. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Okay guys - the Hamster seems to be on our side and s/he needs some help proving that guns don't kill people, people do.

    We all have facts and figures squirreled away for these types of situations and this one will be for public debate in class - so let's get some real information out there!

    JD
     
  4. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    If I've produced a weapon, it's to protect the life, limb or eyesight of a loved one or myself. It is illegal, and dangerous to show a weapon without intent to use it. If you draw and decide that you can't use it, the bad guy will use it. And, if you do draw, you need to shoot to disable your attacker. There is no easier way to disable an attacker than to kill them.

    In summation, if you produce a piece to defend yourself, you need to shoot to kill. Anything else is irresponsible and a easy way to have your own life taken.

    How embarrassing would it be to have your home robbed and get gut shot by your own weapon?
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2009
  5. easterner123

    easterner123 New Member

    348
    0
    0
    well, IMO, it doesn't matter if the thief is mentally challenged or not. He has a gun and is a threat, standard protocol still stands. While presenting this point, mention the training required to own handguns, and responsibility etc. Also mention that lethal force is a LAST RESORT! Most of the time, the intimidation of another armed person is a sufficient deterrent. Include good examples of your scenario that are in the press (haha good luck finding them).
    On that note, don't have every one of them be from a right wing magazine/paper. Inlcude some from local papers as well.
     
  6. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    This sounds like the primary reason for having a weapon for home defense, a situation requiring you to actually USE the weapon in defense of your LIFE against an attacker who is beyond reason.

    In other words, it seems to me that the deterrent effect of having a gun in your home is secondary to the protective effect of using a gun to defend your life in your home. For one thing, i don't have a warning sticker on the door proclaiming that my home contains a gun, so how would a burglar know i had a gun and be deterred from burglarizing/attacking me?

    Was i supposed to get a sticker? I do have a sign from an alarm company (no alarm).
     
  7. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    19,847
    3
    0
    If someone enters my home with a firearm, they will likely be killed. The object is to stop the attack.

    Whether they are disabled or killed is determined strictly by the quality of my marksmanship at the time of the confrontation.
     
  8. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    There will be no dialog or questioning to find out his cognitive processes, if some one breaks into my home, thats his first mistake and a bad decision. If he has a weapon and is mentally challenged, well he was not confused enough to make the decision to break in, and he apparently knows enough to handle a firearm and use it as a threat. IMO he has made a life-threatening action toward me, my family and my dog. I will make a life ending decision for him, in case he is to confused to make it for himself.
     
  9. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,326
    168
    63
    If I am not willing to attempt to defend myself, family and the goldfish, then I have chosen to rely upon the good will and benevolence of of someone that has broken into my home, is armed, and is committing more than one crime already.

    So what's wrong with this picture? Besides the lack of benevolence and good will?

    Take it a step further- he is "confused" and "mentally challenged". OK- now I am relying on the good graces of a nut case. No thanks.

    Think about this for a minute. What is the armed robbery rate of convenience stores? Pretty high. What is the armed robbery rate of gun shops? Pretty low, for obvious reasons.

    The mindset that you should never raise an objection to being mugged, since this may result in your being hurt, is totally discounting two factors- first, they may (and DO) hurt people that are not resisting, and second- that behavior (being a willing victim) encourages more anti-social behavior.
     
  10. CCW357

    CCW357 New Member

    103
    0
    0
    I live in Florida which is a castle doctrine state. If someone breaks into my home ,I am not going to ask them if they are mentaly challanged.I dont have to hide in the bathroom or run out the back door.Next step call 911. And tell them to send the paramedics.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2009
  11. Hawaianhamster

    Hawaianhamster New Member

    3
    0
    0
    Nice, thanks a lot guys. I think I'm just going to start a second speech just FOR his answer. A couple questions to further prove the credibility of the response:

    Do you have any statistics and credible source to prove that?

    Also, this one is a bit off-topic, but, any stances on whether assault weapons should be banned?
     
  12. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    I don't believe in banning what is called Assault Weapons.
     
  13. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    1.) Define the term assault weapon.
    2.) Banning anything is banning freedom.
    3.) Banning anything opens the way for the powers that be to ban anything they don't like. This problem is currently playing itself out in states like California, New York, Maryland and Illinois. It'll be coming soon to a state near you.
     
  14. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Could you define an "assault weapon"? I can't really think of much someone could be assaulted by, except a weapon, be that a brick, a knife, a pistol, a single-shot rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, or an engineered virus. (I forgot baseball & softball bats & tennis rackets.)

    I don't think bricks should be banned; they have many useful purposes other than acting as assault weapons. Further, i'm no legal expert, but i don't recall anything in the Constitution of this country that related to banning bricks due to their danger to windows or the public.

    edit* Matt G., that was spooky.
     
  15. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    You don't see it put into that context often enough, but that is what is happening.

    I'll bet that you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in your state and if not, you do in several neighboring states. The same goes for wearing a seat belt when you ride in a car. That's your home state dictating to you that they know what is best for your own safety and that they know this better than you do.

    Look at drug prohibition or the prohibition on prostitution or gambling. That's nothing more than the state or federal government telling you what is best for you.

    We're now headed down a slippery slope in which the government will dictate more and more what you can't do in the interest of your own safety, rather than letting you decide what is best for you. This comes as higher and higher numbers of Americans are being forced into social welfare programs.

    What the government owns, the government controls.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  16. easterner123

    easterner123 New Member

    348
    0
    0
    Assault weapons should not be banned. The reason the founding fathers didn't add a clause for that purpose is government power. If the people feel that the government is unjust and despotic, they can rebel. A milita isn't the national guard, because the militia is supposed to be state trained and not at the call of the federal government.

    So in short, we should have assault weapons to defend ourselves from despotic leadership as well as criminals.
     
  17. jwhirl413

    jwhirl413 New Member

    280
    4
    0
    This is from a thread on this site, titled "Got a quote you like? share it with us."

    According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.

    -- G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.

    I think this speaks volumes about using a gun and being passive.

    For the record I've used this several times in debates with my liberal friends who think I'm a gun nut, when they read it or hear me recite it, they usually have nothing to say in response
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  18. RL357Mag

    RL357Mag New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    If you truly want the best information compiled by a Professor who did the most exhaustive study in the history of this country, go to the library and get the book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott. His data was compiled from stats researched from literally THOUSANDS of counties' crime statistics nationwide. It took several years to complete, but is without a doubt the best pro-gun argument available.
     
  19. Hawaianhamster

    Hawaianhamster New Member

    3
    0
    0
    I DO live in Illinois, and it IS very frustrating.

    Assault as in M-16s, etc.

    And yes, I know about the domino effect that can happen when you ban one thing, it can spread to other lesser things, but I'm just wondering if there's another angle I can attack the subject. I'm not giving a speech to raise more questions, I'm giving a speech to dominate.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  20. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,326
    168
    63
    Link for you on DOJ document on convenience store robberies- nationally, they account for 12% of all armed robberies. Homicide rates for convenience store clerks is second only to cab drivers. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e0407972.pdf


    However, in this area, there has been ONE robbery of a gunshop in the past 30 years. And that is about 20 shops in the greater metro area.

    Now, regarding your question on "assault weapons", could you tell me what that is? I thought I carried one for several years- an Army issued M-16. Full auto weapons are already massively regulated under Federal law- and IIRC, in the past 40 years ONE legally possessed full auto was used in a murder- a police officer that shot his wife. But I hear news critters and politicians refer to semi auto rifles as "assault weapons" ONE of their criteria is if the rifle will accept a bayonet. Did I miss the rash of drive-by bayonetings? And what does that have to do with politicians outlawing ownership of that gun?

    BTW- over the years, gun control laws have been passed over and over for the avowed purpose of keeping guns "out of the wrong hands". Sounds good, huh? Do some research (not gonna do it for you) and you will find that at various times and places in the US, the "wrong hands" have been Indian, Black, Irish, female, immigrant, poor folks, Catholics, etc etc. You might also research how poorly existing firearm laws are enforced. Since 1968, a convicted felon may not possess a firearm- to do so is a separate legal offense that carries a mandatory prison term. So..... why are we still playing "catch and release" with some of these folks? As opposed to jacking up one corner of the jail, sliding them under, and let it back down?