Talk About GTA

[Kumaki]

Only Valid reason I see is if you live in the great north like Rural Canada or Alaska dealing with Bears and such, Handguns often are not enough to stop them, you need something with a little more firepower. Also amazingly there are some people out in real rural areas that still need to hunt for food..


I used to be big into shooting when I turned 21 and could legally buy guns and used to go to the shooting range every week. It is fun to target practice, but I found little real use for them. I had a 9mm handgun and a semi-automatic shotgun, but I ended up selling them when I was 27 or so.

Well, hell, even I once owned a gun.

I had it for home defense.  I fortunately never had to use it off the firing range.  And I never enjoyed it.

I lived in a bad neighborhood, due to being, at the time, in a lower socioeconomic strata than I now am.  Because the apartment would not allow me to have a dog (which I would have preferred) I got the gun.

A Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action pistol-grip shotgun.  I deliberately got this model because I was told it was one of the best guns for home defense...for someone who was not necessarily a good shot.  with a gun like that, you don't need to be a good shot, the spread gets the baddies.

Good thing I never DID have to use it for real, either...than gun had a bitch of a kick on it, that kept pulling my shots UP.  I had to learn to aim lower than what I actually wanted to hit.

When I was able to move to an apartment where I could have a dog...I got rid of the gun.  sold it back to the same shop I bought it from.

I still have the dog.  she's 12 years old now.  And I now live in PA, rather than TX...which is where I was when I got the dog.

My point being there are certainly valid reasons one may want to own a gun: Sport shooting, hunting, home defense are all valid reasons.  None of which require an AK-47 or other automatic rifle, none of which require a large-capacity magazine...none of which require what amounts to weapons of war.  there is no reason on EARTH...anyone should need guns like that, and they should not be obtainable.

But my own take is...rather than registering guns...how about requiring ammo manufacturers to stamp each bullet with a serial number which is registered, and it is known who bought the ammo.

This way, if it is used in the commission of a crime, we can determine who is guilty.

 

[Klumpen]

Guns + small kids + actionmovies/TV

all in the same household

= likely to turn into some kind of a disaster sooner or later.

As seen in the article and the other articles linked in it.

 

[Timstertoo]

Guns + small kids + actionmovies/TV

all in the same household

= likely to turn into some kind of a disaster sooner or later.

As seen in the article and the other articles linked in it.

I agree. I can't imagine a situation where it's normal to have weapons in reach of children.

And if there is a burglar and you need to get it out of a safe first it sort of defies the purpose. If I would have the gun in the house, I'd have it somewhere where I could grab it real quick if the need arises.

On the other hand I have no problem having two seriously big guard dogs (Boerboels) around my children and think that's perfectly safe (for them, not the numbnuts that come into the house uninvited, that would save me a meal for them  ). So it's probably a matter of perspective and culture.

 

[ZXDunny]

But my own take is...rather than registering guns...how about requiring ammo manufacturers to stamp each bullet with a serial number which is registered, and it is known who bought the ammo.

This way, if it is used in the commission of a crime, we can determine who is guilty.

Unfortunately that would be next to impossible - when a gun is fired, the "bullet" or ammunition round separates into two pieces - the actual payload which hits the target, and the jacket that contains the explosive which provides the motive force. The jacket is usually ejected somewhere very near the murderer, so would be easily retrieved by same, and the bullet as it hits the target usually deforms quite extensively making any markings very difficult to determine, if not impossible.
That's not to mention the problems inherent in thieved ammunition and weaponry etc.

D.

 

[rohezal]

Can't you lock yourself, when a burglar is in your house and call the police? I mean, killing someone to save some money is pretty bad and the police is (normaly) better in not killing criminals but jailing them, then a normal person with a gun.

 

[Timstertoo]

Can't you lock yourself, when a burglar is in your house and call the police? I mean, killing someone to save some money is pretty bad and the police is (normaly) better in not killing criminals but jailing them, then a normal person with a gun.

The problem would be said burglar would be locked in with you. I'd say locking a burglar in just makes the situation that much more dangerous for yourself. You always need to give someone a way out or his only option is to go through you.

Also, and I'm in the bloody big dog camp, not the arm ourselves to the teeth with firearms camp, it's not about the money. It's about the safety of my family. I work late hours and I feel a lot better knowing that no random burglar will pick our house as it's a bad matchup in any risk-reward scenario a sensible burglar would make. If he's an idiot and tries anyways he'll regret it. If he's a genius and plans up front how to deal with the dogs he'll find a way around anything and it's irrelevant. Also there is nothing to find in my house worth making elaborate plans for. So the criminal geniuses have better places to go be criminal.

So summing up, I'm not an interesting target moneywise and I'm not low hanging fruit due to the dogs (they can walk into every room, small house, no doors on the inside).

Living in not the best area of Amsterdam with a lot of forced home entries (especially when the people are home and awake!) it's good to not be the biggest target.

It's a bit like the old Kangaroo (the shoe brand) commercial that was on television years ago. Two guys meet a lion, the guy wearing Kangaroos tightens his shoelaces. The other one says, "Why do you do that? We can't outrun a lion!" His response is "But I can outrun you."

 

[Kumaki]

Can't you lock yourself, when a burglar is in your house and call the police? I mean, killing someone to save some money is pretty bad and the police is (normaly) better in not killing criminals but jailing them, then a normal person with a gun.

That is not a realistic option for some people.

Take me, for example.  I live in an extremely rural area with no local police.  We have to depend on the state Police...and they come from all the way out in Lehighton.  That's over twenty miles away.

By the time THEY get to my house, they will just be picking up the pieces if I sit and wait for THEM to show up!

It's like I tell the alarm companies all the time who try to sell us alarms with monitoring systems..."What the hell good is your monitoring service, when then nearest police are twenty miles away?"

No I got a couple of pit bulls,  that and my retired watchdog, the twelve year old.  She is now too old to be much of a watchdog.

It is as Timster says.  You can't stop a really determined thief.  You can only make yourself as undesireable a target as possible.

Let's face it...why does anyone want to deal with my pit bulls...when, by walking 200 yards in either direction, they can get one of my neighbors that do not have dogs?

Of course, we don't have many problems out where I am...because we live on a private dirt road, which dead-ends by my house.

Strangers stick out like a sore thumb here.  and also, there is only one way in...and one way out.  The entire area is very non-appealing to a criminal...if they could even find it...and then find their way out again...good luck.

Of course, next year we leave this place, and are moving to North Carolina.  A different neighborhood, a different situation, which we will have to evaluate when we get there...as to the best means to protect our property.  My vote still goes iwth the pit bulls.

 

[klapse]

It's a bit like the old Kangaroo (the shoe brand) commercial that was on television years ago. Two guys meet a lion, the guy wearing Kangaroos tightens his shoelaces. The other one says, "Why do you do that? We can't outrun a lion!" His response is "But I can outrun you."

By the same argument people justify firearms for home defense. The sound of a pump-action shotgun being loaded has been known to drive away intruders. There are of course other deterrents available, including dogs, geese and video surveillance.

 

[rohezal]

I meant to lock yourself in a seperate room (like sleeping chamber) when the thieve is in a different room and let the thief steal your stuff. You call the police, and hope it arrives in time. Best case is that the buglar not even notice it.

Edit: Maybe it is just me or maybe central europe, but I don't fear a buglar. And even, I don't want to kill someone to save some money ("protecting my home"). There is no reason for a buglar to harm me, he will get a way harder punishment and if he kills me he will have a charge for murder and more police behind him (including DNA matching etc). If I see him and be left alive I can maybe identify him, so it is bad too. So IF a buglar is in my flat (just have one friend who was a victim of a buglar, she left her backdoor open for several hours and was not in the room), he will run away when he is hearing someone coming. No need to "defend" yourself. And if you are shooting a running buglar, you will get in jail in Germany. And I think it is the right choice, that this happens. Serious Injuries / Death is way worse then losing some money (probably less then 1000$).

 

[Timstertoo]

I meant to look yourself in a seperate room (like sleeping chamber) when the thieve is in a different room and let the thief steal your stuff. You call the police, and hope it arrives in time. Best case is that the buglar not even notice it.

Edit: Maybe it is just me or maybe central europe, but I don't fear a buglar. And even, I don't want to kill someone to save some money ("protecting my home"). There is no reason for a buglar to harm me, he will get a way harder punishment and if he kills me he will have a charge for murder and more police behind him (including DNA matching etc). If I see him and be left alive I can maybe identify him, so it is bad too. So IF a buglar is in my flat (just have one friend who was a victim of a buglar, she left her backdoor open for several hours and was not in the room), he will run away when he is hearing someone coming. No need to "defend" yourself. And if you are shooting a running buglar, you will get in jail in Germany. And I think it is the right choice, that this happens. Serious Injuries / Death is way worse then losing some money (probably less then 1000$).

It depends what you mean by burglar. The one you describe sounds harmless enough although in my house, without doors, there is no place to lock ourselves.

In my area there are a lot of daytime/evening home entries where they threaten the people with guns and force them to tell them where all the money, jewelry etc etc is. They mostly target people they know have lots (well lots.. these guys are bottom feeders that will define a couple of 100 euros as a lot) of cash at the house. That's why it's no secret that the cash I receive in my pub, stays at my pub. I never take it home with me.

If you want that, go to the pub at night. No dogs, no people. Just the alarm and the video system to deal with.

Come to my house, no cash but my family and a couple of dogs that will give you a hard time and, if I'm home, me that will pull you back in if you're nearly outside to give you some dessert.

I try to make it easy for people to chose whatever is preferable of my places to mess with if they are inclined to do so.

We've had one break in in the pub. Insurance covered the damages. Apart from a crapload of paperwork no harm done. I can live with that. Wouldn't risk my dogs over it by putting one in the bar at night. 

 

[Kumaki]

You obviously do not have the sort of crime we have in America, dude.

If a burglar or other criminal THINKS you saw him...he is as likely to kill you...so that you can't later testify.  Criminals here honestly think they will get away with it.

For me...if I'm already dead...it's a real cold comfort that the guy will get caught and go to jail.  Because now I'm in a permanent dirt jail.

I'd rather deter them from picking my place in the first place.  Barring that, I would try to get into another room, lock the door...and then try to climb out the window, and leave the premises entirely.  Go to a neighbor's house and call the police from there.

My point?  If I am in such a position...I want to be around as many witnesses as I can be.  There is safety in that.  Hiding under a bed, or whatever, as you suggest...is no good.  I want witnesses around me...as many as I can get.  Because that is more likely to save my life.

 

[rohezal]

We've had one break in in the pub. Insurance covered the damages. Apart from a crapload of paperwork no harm done. I can live with that. Wouldn't risk my dogs over it by putting one in the bar at night.

A very good decision in my opinion.

Barring that, I would try to get into another room, lock the door...and then try to climb out the window, and leave the premises entirely.  Go to a neighbor's house and call the police from there.

A very good idea, even better then just locking in the room.

You obviously do not have the sort of crime we have in America, dude.

If a burglar or other criminal THINKS you saw him...he is as likely to kill you...so that you can't later testify.  Criminals here honestly think they will get away with it.

well lots.. these guys are bottom feeders that will define a couple of 100 euros as a lot

Let's face it...why does anyone want to deal with my pit bulls...when, by walking 200 yards in either direction, they can get one of my neighbors that do not have dogs?

I think this 3 quotes explain the problem. I mean you can even be murdered (death penalty) in some states for killing some one. And you would still prefer the risk of dieing or living a long time in jail, instead of fleeing? Sounds pretty desperate for me. Like the movie "get rich or die trying". 

If someone is going to risk his life, for a few hundred bugs, he must have no choice. Drugs, no money for the rent, no money for visiting a doctor, no chance to get a job. I can't imagine someone with a nice office job with 2000$ income per month, would break in houses and murder people.

The last qoute "let's face it", shows main problem. Nobody solves the causes, just try to avoid to be a victim of the "victims". This people won't disappear, when you get dogs. But they maybe choose someone else. And it looks like that they have too, since a few hundred bugs aren't worth the risk in a wealthy society. So  mainthe problem is: there are poor people, that have to burglarize.

Maybe I am wrong, but at least this is what our news explain: Instead of implementing a good social security system (everyone who has no job, gets a free flat and 330 hundred bugs each month and can visit the doctor for free) which would solve the cause of the problem, you try to put the consequences on someone else. If you have nothing to loose, you will risk everything. If you have something to loose, you are more careful.

 

[DaMummy]

all of you should get warning points for taking such a rail off topic. Can we split this thread and get back to what the title says and talk about glorifying the delicious murder of hookers and police in amazingly fun video games?

 

[Kumaki]

We've had one break in in the pub. Insurance covered the damages. Apart from a crapload of paperwork no harm done. I can live with that. Wouldn't risk my dogs over it by putting one in the bar at night.

A very good decision in my opinion.

>>>Barring that, I would try to get into another room, lock the door...and then try to climb out the window, and leave the premises entirely.  Go to a neighbor's house and call the police from there.

A very good idea, even better then just locking in the room.

You obviously do not have the sort of crime we have in America, dude.

If a burglar or other criminal THINKS you saw him...he is as likely to kill you...so that you can't later testify.  Criminals here honestly think they will get away with it.

well lots.. these guys are bottom feeders that will define a couple of 100 euros as a lot

Let's face it...why does anyone want to deal with my pit bulls...when, by walking 200 yards in either direction, they can get one of my neighbors that do not have dogs?

I think this 3 quotes explain the problem. I mean you can even be murdered (death penalty) in some states for killing some one. And you would still prefer the risk of dieing or living a long time in jail, instead of fleeing? Sounds pretty desperate for me. Like the movie "get rich or die trying". 

If someone is going to risk his life, for a few hundred bugs, he must have no choice. Drugs, no money for the rent, no money for visiting a doctor, no chance to get a job. I can't imagine someone with a nice office job with 2000$ income per month, would break in houses and murder people.

The last qoute "let's face it", shows main problem. Nobody solves the causes, just try to avoid to be a victim of the "victims". This people won't disappear, when you get dogs. But they maybe choose someone else. And it looks like that they have too, since a few hundred bugs aren't worth the risk in a wealthy society. So  mainthe problem is: there are poor people, that have to burglarize.

Maybe I am wrong, but at least this is what our news explain: Instead of implementing a good social security system (everyone who has no job, gets a free flat and 330 hundred bugs each month and can visit the doctor for free) which would solve the cause of the problem, you try to put the consequences on someone else. If you have nothing to loose, you will risk everything. If you have something to loose, you are more careful.

The death penalty is not a deterrent.

First of all, these people do not think they will get caught.  Especially if they waste possible witnesses.

Secondly, very few murders are penalized by the death penalty...there usually have to be "aggrivating circumstances"  And each state has it's own definition of what that is - and the D.A. might not even choose to pursue the death penalty.  Unless he has an open and shut case...because many jurors in the U.S. are pretty squeamish about the death penalty, and will often only agree to convict if the death penalty is off the table.

Also, in the case of a home burglary gone bad...it usually is defined as second-degree murder, which does not carry the possibility of the death penalty, since the murder is not "pre-meditated."

And the problem with the social security system you propose...how do you then motivate anyone to get another job?  Why work when someone will give you what you need for free?  There will always be people who abuse the system.  And then the people who DO work, and thus contribute to that system...are going to scream about breaking their butts to support that bum.

He won't take into consideration that...the most dangerous person is one who has nothing left to lose.  and that, in a way, he is buying protection for himself and his family by having that system in place.  But again...the problem becomes...how to motivate someone to go back and get another job??

The main reason welfare people stay on welfare in this country now...is that welfare is a better deal than work...you usually gfet more money.  Why would I, for example, want to go out and work 40 hours to make 800 bucks a month...when welfare will provide me with 1400 bucks a month and I don't have to lift even a finger?

all of you should get warning points for taking such a rail off topic. Can we split this thread and get back to what the title says and talk about glorifying the delicious murder of hookers and police in amazingly fun video games?

THAT....does not even warrant a comment.

In case you did not notice, long ago, the topic took this tack of talking about criminals in real life...and how various people would deal with the prolem of criminals.

 

[rohezal]

He won't take into consideration that...the most dangerous person is one who has nothing left to lose.  and that, in a way, he is buying protection for himself and his family by having that system in place.  But again...the problem becomes...how to motivate someone to go back and get another job??

1. Most of European countries have such a system. And it works quite well, Germany had one of the best social system which was decreased what I said (320€, a free flat, free health care, and for 10€ a bus ticket to drive a whole month in your city). You can't loose this even if you live 10 years or longer this way. And it works quite well. Germany has a very strong economy.

German Murders per year: 900

USA Murders per year: 12000

Since the united states have almost 4 times the population of Germany we have to scale the murders by dividing the us murders by 4.

German Murders per year: 900

USA Murders per year: 3000

It is pretty clear which country has a bigger problem.

USA: death penalty, it is very easy to get a weapon, little social security

Germany: No death penalty, it is very hard to get a weapon, medium social security

And the problem with the social security system you propose...how do you then motivate anyone to get another job?

First: You earn much more then the social security money. And you have to visit the employment center regulary and get job offers. If you refuse them you are punished. You lost 30% of your money. If you keep refusing them you can loose all the money. But you keep free health care and your flat. Some states of Germany provide free foodstamps for people who won't get the money but not all. This is a real shame.

One party in Germany want even to remove the punishment and want to implement a minimum wage so high, that is it much better to work then getting social security money.

Why would I, for example, want to go out and work 40 hours to make 800 bucks a month...when welfare will provide me with 1400 bucks a month and I don't have to lift even a finger?

There are 2 ways to solve it. Increase the wages or decrease social security. The first one increase the life quality of most people in the country. The second decreases the life quality for a lot of people and can lead to murder and crimes.

First of all, these people do not think they will get caught.  Especially if they waste possible witnesses.

The problem is bad education. At least in Germany most murder crimes are solved, by DNA tests and by registering all weapons. If someone knows this and has a good life, why would he risk to get in Jail to 95% for a few hundred Dollars?

There will always be people who abuse the system.

The question is: is this a problem?

This is not a question if it is fair, that some people are doing to nothing for their money, but if it is necessary for all people to work? Most work is done by machines. Most food, most work of harvesting, industrie production. I am a Bachelor of Computer Science and a professor paid by Intel teached us how to make good processors and how the fabs (factories) are producing them. Humans aren't even allowed to enter the factory when everything is working fine. Way to dangerous for the humans and the chips. There is an engineer team, which waits outside and just goes in when something is broken. So I think we don't need most people working. I don't want someone who gives me flyers at the university for a hairdresser. Or call my grandpa and try to sell him some magazines.

Some people who are necessary to survive can't be replaced like doctors, engineers, psychologists and such stuff.

Most people who make our lives more fun can't be replaced like artists, actors (well ice age is quite good, but hey), prostitutes etc.

Most people who live on welfare consume cheap products, for which almost no human has worked for. Industry produced foods, harvested by big tractors. I was 2 times in a big food factory, which was in the harvest time. Not even 20 people worked there (all engineers and one bussisness guy) and it produced the sugar for almost a whole German state. And the people working there, are working anyway, to produce the sugar for everyone (including themself).  I don't think welfare people abuse anyone, except the machines. The extra amount of work is almost not existent.

A different thing is, when they are visiting a doctor. He must realy work for every patient visiting him. This is an unsolved problem, but since a doctor has vowed to try to cure everyone who asks for help, I think it is ok, when people honour the doctors enough.

Finally I want to say, I think Germany has pretty bad social security currently and I would be happy if it would improve. I read today a pretty impressive story about a black woman from the black panther of self defence movement. A court said she shoot a white cop who stopped her car. And a black man who was riding with her in her car. She escaped to Cuba which is pretty poor. I don't know if she was really guilty.

The people asked her "how is the living in USA". She told them about homeless people, people who can't pay for the doctor and 12 year kids who are junkies. Most people said: "We know that capitalism is bad, but you don't need to exaggerate. There can't be such horrible things in such a rich country". This doesn't mean Cuba is good, it is pretty poor country with some censorship. But it was interesting to see the different perception.

 

[Exophase]

USA: death penalty, it is very easy to get a weapon, little social security

Maybe you don't know this but the US government doesn't regulate capital punishment, it's up to the individual states (oh and the other two things you said vary a lot by state too). Currently 18 states + Washington DC do not allow capital punishment, and this includes some rather populous states like New York. Several only abolished it in the last decade or so so the number is probably going to continue to increase a lot.
Other than that, whole lot of "correlation != causation" may apply to your post. I really doubt that the death penalty significantly increases the number of murders, even if it may not serve as any kind of deterrent itself. I could however see a strong argument that over-imprisonment increases the crime rate, especially for people who enter the prison system at a young age.

 

[moxie]

There is actually research that points to the conclusion that the death penalty does increase the rate of violence in crime. That is, once the criminal has gotten past a certain limit, he really truly has nothing to lose anymore, and thus becomes more likely to shoot his way out of cornered situations and so on.

 

[Exophase]

There is actually research that points to the conclusion that the death penalty does increase the rate of violence in crime. That is, once the criminal has gotten past a certain limit, he really truly has nothing to lose anymore, and thus becomes more likely to shoot his way out of cornered situations and so on.

But how do you know that the death penalty is the point where the criminal has nothing to lose anymore? That could easily be hit at life in jail or even several years.
Take a look at China, their murder rate is almost as low as Germany's despite having a lot more poverty and probably a lot more corruption on various levels.. And they have the death penalty. And they resort to it way more than the USA does, probably because in their system it's much cheaper than a lengthy prison sentence. Regardless of whether or not it works as a deterrent you can't argue that someone given the death sentence has zero possible chance of murdering again.

 

[Kumaki]

@Rohezal...

Take it form me, an American...yes, it CAN actually be that bad in America.

You have the super-wealthy...and the super-poor.

Then there is the Middle Class...which is a lot of your well-off working people.  This is a small sliver under the super-wealthy

Then you have a huge wedge of the Working Poor...who are above the super-poor.

These people are one or two paychecks away from bankruptcy and joining that super-poor bottom level.

And this is where most americans exist.  In that Working Poor category.

I, myself, am in that grouping for now.  I plan on moving up with my business...but who knows if I'll be successful?  There are no guarantees.

But I'll bust my butt trying!

Because I have BEEN in that super-poor segment before...and I never want to go back there.  It is a living hell.

Most people in that group honestly would probably prefer to die.

 

[hailrazer]

@Rohezal...

Take it form me, an American...yes, it CAN actually be that bad in America.

You have the super-wealthy...and the super-poor.

Then there is the Middle Class...which is a lot of your well-off working people.  This is a small sliver under the super-wealthy

Then you have a huge wedge of the Working Poor...who are above the super-poor.

These people are one or two paychecks away from bankruptcy and joining that super-poor bottom level.

And this is where most americans exist.  In that Working Poor category.

I, myself, am in that grouping for now.  I plan on moving up with my business...but who knows if I'll be successful?  There are no guarantees.

But I'll bust my butt trying!

Because I have BEEN in that super-poor segment before...and I never want to go back there.  It is a living hell.

Most people in that group honestly would probably prefer to die.

Middle Class ($35k-$75k) in USA is 35% of the population,  Working Class ($15k-$35K) is 32%

USA is not mainly a poor country, it's population for the most part do fine if they choose to work.