Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper

[texascrw 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So thieves deliberately targeted the home of a gun owner?

That seems to kill the theory that guns are a deterrent. And if they're not then 90% of the pro-gun lobby's argument goes up in smoke.

They are only a deterrent if someone is there to use them. A burglar is not afraid of the gun, he is afraid of the homeowner with the gun.

That's only the case if the burglar is certain that nobody's home. If the burglar doesn't know whether someone is home, but knows that the homeowner owns a gun, then the potential deterrent does exist.

(For the record, I think it was a suck-ass thing for the paper to publish that info; and I agree it does invite either burglary and/or harrassment of lawful gun-owners. It places lawful gun owners at a comparative disadvantage, for there's no database of illegal gun owners to publish.)

Andy, I agree with you. Over the years I have read several articles where they had interviewed burglars in prison. The one thing they all agreed on was, an armed homeowner was the last thing they wanted to confront. They felt their odds of survival were much better with the police. Unless they did something really stupid, the cops would just arrest them. Dealing with an armed, scared civilian was a different game. Say the wrong thing, or make the wrong move, and you could find yourself splattered all over the wall. The main reason they tried to break into homes when they thought no one was there. Self preservation at work.

[jono 0]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html [/crazy]

Yep, nothing abnormal here.

Remember you don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.

[regulator 0]

Because the link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case. Stop being so predictable. You're boring me to death.

[Anvilbrother 0]

You have officially met the criteria for being a troll.

Quote

with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Find one post where someone actually said that a gun by it self without anyone holding is deterrent. Just a gun sitting in a safe or on a counter is what you are saying someone said here, so please back it up.

You made a statement I have called you out to back up what you say.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[texascrw 1]

Quote

You have officially met the criteria for being a troll.

Quote

with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Find one post where someone actually said that a gun by it self without anyone holding is deterrent. Just a gun sitting in a safe or on a counter is what you are saying someone said here, so please back it up.

You made a statement I have called you out to back up what you say.

I hope you are not in a hurry, especially if you are expecting a rational answer. The best you can hope for is a snide remark, Kallend's way of showing us all how witty he is, or a braying of the usual bullshit repeated from the liars at the Brady Campaign or some other group of gun hating half wits.

[quade 4]

Enough with the personal attacks.

No warnings required. Take a week off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cvfd1399 0]

Where was his PA? Was it removed? Everything he stated that i can still see here is true, and is joked about here by dozens of people.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So thieves deliberately targeted the home of a gun owner?

That seems to kill the theory that guns are a deterrent. And if they're not then 90% of the pro-gun lobby's argument goes up in smoke.

Nope. You are assuming that the crooks just blindly picked name off the list and blindly hit the house.
Believe it or not, there are crooks smarter than that, "Hey dude. Let's check to see if anybody's home first."
That's covered in Burglary 101.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>Guess you should have read the article before coming out with that stupid
>statement. SHE WAS'NT HOME.

So conclusion - if, at times, you will not be home, don't let anyone know you have guns in your house, or it will make your house a target.

(Alternatively, put a "gun availability zone" sign in your yard if you want to help out the criminals . . . .)

Man! THAT'S a strange twist! Cart before the horse.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

So thieves deliberately targeted the home of a gun owner?

That seems to kill the theory that guns are a deterrent. And if they're not then 90% of the pro-gun lobby's argument goes up in smoke.

Nope. You are assuming that the crooks just blindly picked name off the list and blindly hit the house.
Believe it or not, there are crooks smarter than that, "Hey dude. Let's check to see if anybody's home first."
That's covered in Burglary 101.

The list was a list of gun owners. I don't doubt that the criminals checked to see that the house was empty, but the fact that they chose a house off the list means that they broke-in because of the gun. Ergo - the gun caused this break-in which is the opposite of a deterrent.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Guess you should have read the article before coming out with that stupid statement. SHE WAS'NT HOME.

Let's get this straight:

Your point is that the thieves used the list in the article to identify a house with a gun. Why? The only logical reason is that they wanted to steal a gun.

In that case, the gun was directly responsible for the break-in. Therefore, in this case, the presence of the gun caused a crime to be committed.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[cvfd1399 0]

How can an inanimate object cause a crime to be committed? That would be the same as saying the ground caused you to hook turn and break your femur.

[davjohns 1]

Non-sequittur...the criminal intent of the criminals was the cause of the crime. This is the traditional problem with the logic of those who emotionally oppose people owning firearms. They blame inanimate objects for the actions of humans. It is not logical.

Your argument is that it is the money's fault that people rob banks. I guess we should get rid of money and we would have no crime.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Guess you should have read the article before coming out with that stupid statement. SHE WAS'NT HOME.

Let's get this straight:

Your point is that the thieves used the list in the article to identify a house with a gun. Why? The only logical reason is that they wanted to steal a gun.

In that case, the gun was directly responsible for the break-in. Therefore, in this case, the presence of the gun caused a crime to be committed.

So lets get this straight. It's the automobile that is responsible for the accident, not the driver?

See how dumb that sounds?

[davjohns 1]

OK...well...I've never broken my femur, but I do find the ground getting in my way from time to time.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

Guess you should have read the article before coming out with that stupid statement. SHE WAS'NT HOME.

Let's get this straight:

Your point is that the thieves used the list in the article to identify a house with a gun. Why? The only logical reason is that they wanted to steal a gun.

In that case, the gun was directly responsible for the break-in. Therefore, in this case, the presence of the gun caused a crime to be committed.

-----------------------------------------------------
You can say whatever it is that makes you feel better at night. Blame it on the gun if you want to. But I don't lose sleep at night wondering if my guns are going to rise up and mount a rebellion against me in my sleep. Your logic is so flawed you and your liberal bretheren are grasping at straws and trying to assess blame in the wrong places. But then shifting responsibility is all I read and have yet to hear anything logical to eliminate mass shootings. We can't blame the actual criminals that perpetrate the crimes because we have to protect their civil liberties. Can't blame the mental health system because its so fucked up nobody knows where to begin. I've been hearing arguments from supposedly the most persuasive of liberal speakers and yet all I hear is deflection and wanting to blame an inantimate object. Go back to the drawing board because your sad arguments are boring me to death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdUSpiC8MsU

[davjohns 1]

Ahhhhh, crap! Now, I know what I'm going to dream about tonight. Thanks alot! I had a hot blonde all lined up in my head.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the fact that they chose a house off the list means that they broke-in because of the gun.

You can't know that unless the burglar is caught and confesses to exactly that. Logically, statistically if you will, some of the houses on that list are going to be burglarized due to mere coincidence, having nothing to do with their being on that list.

[regulator 0]

I can agree with that assesment completely. The only reason this case was so applicable to the article was that it appeared someone attempted to pry open the gun safe and extract the contents. Thankfully they were unsuccessful.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

How can an inanimate object cause a crime to be committed? That would be the same as saying the ground caused you to hook turn and break your femur.

I did not say the gun caused the crime, I said the PRESENCE of the gun caused the crime. In other words it was the bait that attracted the burglars.

If all you people have to defend yourselves is word games then I take it that my argument has ore validity.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[Remster 30]

Quote

I can agree with that assesment completely. The only reason this case was so applicable to the article was that it appeared someone attempted to pry open the gun safe and extract the contents. Thankfully they were unsuccessful.

Yeah... If I was a robber, I sure wouldn't normally target a safe.

Remster

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I did not say the gun caused the crime, I said the PRESENCE of the gun caused the crime. In other words it was the bait that attracted the burglars.

If all you people have to defend yourselves is word games then I take it that my argument has ore validity.

guns hold a lot of value - are you saying that it would be ok for the newspaper to post a list of addresses with rare coins, or expensive cars or lots of jewelry?

your premise also acknowledges that criminals will get guns illegally

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

the fact that they chose a house off the list means that they broke-in because of the gun.

You can't know that unless the burglar is caught and confesses to exactly that. Logically, statistically if you will, some of the houses on that list are going to be burglarized due to mere coincidence, having nothing to do with their being on that list.

You're right there, I can't be sure. But premise of this post is that the burglars "chose" this house off the list. If that is not the case then this whole thread is totally irrelevant and the title is misleading.

However, the attempted break in to the gun cabinet at least confirms that they were interested in stealing the gun, even if they stumbled up on it.

Had they been successful, that would have been another 'legal' firearm that fell in to criminal hands. In the same way that the Sandy Hook killer got his.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yeah, it's the guns fault. Not the newspapers for publishing the list. Yeah, that's it.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

In that case, the gun was directly responsible for the break-in. Therefore, in this case, the presence of the gun caused a crime to be committed.

Nobody else is playing word games. Whether you blame the object or the presence of the object is a word game. You are placing blame on something that cannot manifest internt, nor act on that intent. People commit crimes. They are directly responsbile for their actions. Blaming an object is not logical.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.