Replies to post #3955 on The Free Zone Board

[Spallenzani]

Re: Meme/WEAC & Dennis re: gun control

Dogs like him have discouraged home-invaders far more than guns ever have.

Like most things you say, you have no basis for this statement.

Statistics show that homes with dogs are avoided by criminals.

Statistics show that entire communities that have a large percentage of gun ownership are avoided by criminals. Even those who do not own guns benefit from the fact that their neighbors do. The same can't be said for dogs.

Also, lets examine how many children die each year to guns as opposed to dogs. I think you will be surprised with the results.

Further, a dog shouts a warning for both your family and the intruder, but intruders don't know ahead of time if you have a gun.

Then put a sign on your lawn.

Gun ownership doesn't discourage invaders from the attempt, a Shepard quickly will.

Wrong. Gun ownership does discourage invaders from the attempt. Read the study: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Nor do you have to worry about hiding your Shepard from your children,

As I said before, many more children are killed and injured each year by dogs than guns, so your argument is completely backwards, as usual.

finding bullets to load him

Keep it loaded or keep a clip nearby.

However, his gun ownership doesn't make me feel any safer.

It should. If it wasn't for the leftist media and the bogus studies funded with tax dollars like the one you and Mikkj presented, people wouldn't feel uncomfortable about gun ownership and might actually come to appreciate it.

[was Graywolf]

Meme - gun control

Clearly, WEAC, you can see now that I didn't say anything about its purpose being to kill. Nor, Dennis, did I say that the gun possesses "intent." However, Dennis, I also would not go so far as to say that a gun's legal reason for being is self-defense. Guns are used legally for sport and for hunting, and, yes, also for killing people. It's a little ridiculous for anyone to entirely ignore the reason guns were created in the first place, as an instrument of death.

Did you read this paragraph when you wrote it? First, you want to argue semantics by saying that you didn't say that guns' purposes being to kill, when what you DID say is that thier purpose is to shoot someone. I'm sorry, but that's a pretty minor difference. Then, in the last sentenc of the paragraph, you say what you just got done telling me you didn't say. A small contradiction there. The bottom line is that a gun is a tool, no different than a hammer or a saw. It is a tool for self defense and for law enforcement, and it is not right to deny the right to have and utilize such a tool from someone who has not demonstrated that he does not deserve it.

Then you both had similar reactions to this statement of mine:

I guess it would take having someone try to kick your front door down to get at you and kill you (as has happened to me) to bring the reality of your situation "home".

And what has that got to do with the argument? If you had had a gun, and the knowledge of it's use, he wouldn't have gotten very far.

---------------------

Geez, guys, you both saw my photos on PI ALT. Didn't either of you notice the enormous German Shepard? Dogs like him have discouraged home-invaders far more than guns ever have. Statistics show that homes with dogs are avoided by criminals.

Further, a dog shouts a warning for both your family and the intruder, but intruders don't know ahead of time if you have a gun. Gun ownership doesn't discourage invaders from the attempt, a Shepard quickly will. Nor do you have to worry about hiding your Shepard from your children, finding bullets to load him, all the while trying to keep it ready in case of an unknown time of assault.

My next door neighbor owns a gun. You wouldn't believe how many times he's told me how thrilled he was to have our German Shepard patrolling the grounds. He said, nobody's going to mess with our homes, and in 20 years nobody ever has. I've had two Shepards.

However, his gun ownership doesn't make me feel any safer. He's a nice enough guy, but a major drunk. <VBG>

Currently, we are Shepard-less, but I'm sure it won't be long before we get another.

First,you missed my point completely. The preditors have guns. If guns are banned, they will still have guns, because they don't get them legally anyway. those preditors are basicly cowards, preferring to prey on the weak as opposed to the armed citizen. THe knowledge that it is possible that the unknown citizens MAY have guns, keeps him somewhat in check. This is prove out by crime statistics that show that violent crime is the highest in the cities with the strictest gun laws. Second, A dog is also a good means of defense. Personally, I have both.

[QuasimodoJones]

MEME re: gun control

The only difference that I see is that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone. While a car can injure or kill, the primary intent {of ownership) is transportation.

I have to agree with what WEAC has already said to at least some degree: you're splitting a mighty fine hair, here. In any event, I can assure you that that sole "intent" of gun ownership is NOT to shoot something or someone. For several years (until the police burst in, pointed machines guns at me, and took them) I owned a Beretta Model 92 and a Charter Arms .38 Police Undercover for home and self defense. Except for using the .38 for qualifying for a concealed-carry permit, I never fired it. I never fired the Beretta at all. Just didn't have the opportunity arise to get somewhere out in the country to try it out. (However, I was confident that it would have fired if I had needed it to, which is why it stayed on the table next to my bed).

However, Dennis, I also would not go so far as to say that a gun's legal reason for being is self-defense. Guns are used legally for sport and for hunting, and, yes, also for killing people.

Well, naturally sporting and hunting can be included, but I really didn't think I needed to be quite that punctilious with you. You can shoot cans, or deer, or someone trying to harm you or someone else, and that -- without a doubt -- is a firearm's primary legal reason for being.

Geez, guys, you both saw my photos on PI ALT. Didn't either of you notice the enormous German Shepard? Dogs like him have discouraged home-invaders far more than guns ever have. Statistics show that homes with dogs are avoided by criminals.

You bet I saw your photos -- however, dear Lady, I also made note that Kaiser, your German Shepherd had passed away about two years ago. I know how, when a beloved pet dies, there's a certain period of mourning when the thought of getting a replacement for a family member who's essentially irreplaceable is really unthinkable -- but when you're relying on that family member to be your first and only real line of defense against attack, I'm afraid the minimum should be the maximum. Your assertion that dogs have discouraged more home-invaders than guns is, I'm afraid, just that. You have some real statistics, or is that just an intuition?

When I was faced with home invasion, it wasn't just by one guy, but two. You might be surprised just how rapidly even a loyal Shepherd can be dispatched with a club, or a can of Mace, or a gun for that matter, by Assailant 'A' while 'B' strides right past.

Further, a dog shouts a warning for both your family and the intruder, but intruders don't know ahead of time if you have a gun.

Only, Meme, ya know whut? Once the dog is dispatched, that's the end of your warning AND your significant means of defense. And the fact that intruders don't know ahead of time if you have a gun happens to be what works in your favor. Also, ask yourself if, over the years, each time the dog suddenly started to bark in warning, did it turn out to really be justified, or did it turn out to be a false alarm -- and you've become possibly complacent because of that?

Gun ownership doesn't discourage invaders from the attempt, a Shepard quickly will.

Again, you've made an unsupported assertion based only on what "seems" a logical conclusion to you. I personally think the decisive factor is: just how determined are the attackers to get at you and what they think you have that they want? A dog may make a home invader plan more carefully, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be dissuaded. The sight of a firearm, as demonstrated by statistics, definitely does, and is often the only thing necessary, even without being used:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Nor do you have to worry about hiding your Shepard from your children, finding bullets to load him, all the while trying to keep it ready in case of an unknown time of assault.

Well, a lot of your argument depends on how well you know and train your dog as opposed to how well you know and train your child{ren} about guns. You don't have to feed your gun every day, take it to the vet, license it every year or so, worry about it biting a stranger who happens to stray on your property, etc.

My next door neighbor owns a gun. You wouldn't believe how many times he's told me how thrilled he was to have our German Shepard patrolling the grounds. He said, nobody's going to mess with our homes, and in 20 years nobody ever has.

YET. "Nobody's gonna mess with our homes..." After what's happened, don't those words sound just a little hollow?

However, his gun ownership doesn't make me feel any safer. He's a nice enough guy, but a major drunk. <VBG>

A nasty drunk, or a happy drunk? It could make a lot of difference. However, I'd just like to point out that, gun or not, when he gets into his car to drive away drunk, he's still armed...