11 Year Old Girl Scared Burglars with Rifle.

[BobYoMeowMeow]

Girl loads rifle to spook burglars

11-year-old ready to defend herself
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) - When three teenage burglars pried open the door of a northwest Albuquerque home they had no idea they would be met by a brave little girl, police said Wednesday.

Alyssa Gutierrez, 11, took matters into her own hands Tuesday when police said when Miguel Marquez, Eduardo Zubiate and Jesus Quintana broke into her home.

Gutierrez armed herself with a loaded rifle.

"I was planning, if they came right next to me, I would shoot them," Gutierrez said.

But Gutierrez, who will start sixth grade next week, never got the chance because she'd spooked the burglars.

Gutierrez said her cousins went to run an errand around the corner from their home and were gone for a few minutes when she heard the backdoor rattle.

"I thought it was (my cousin) Zachary playing a joke on me so I just turned the TV louder and ignored it," Gutierrez said.

But on the other side of the door were the burglars who pried open the door with a crowbar. Gutierrez believes that they'd seen her cousins leave and chose to break into the home when they thought no one was there.

She said when the Marquez, Zubiate and Quintana got inside, she heard them talk about stealing guns in the home. Gutierrez and her family told KRQE News 13 that they knew one of the suspects and believed the group targeted the home to steal their guns.

"My heart kept on pounding and pounding," Gutierrez said.

She said she slid to the floor from the couch when she saw the trio, but quickly decided that hiding wouldn't do her any good because the masked intruders had seen her.

"They had a rifle so I was thinking, 'What should I do? 'What if they shoot me?'" Gutierrez said.

That's when she made a beeline for her mother's room.

"I ran back into my mom's room and grabbed her little pink rifle, and there was two bullets in there," she said.

With the loaded rifle, Gutierrez said she checked the bathroom and then the living room ready to defend herself. She said she ran to her mother's closet and called 911.

But while Gutierrez protected her home, she had no idea the suspects had jumped the fence and that an off-duty APD officer driving passed her home had spotted them.

Police arrested the three teens and their alleged getaway driver, Abraham Bustillos, minutes after the break-in.

Gutierrez said she feels lucky because just a few days ago she had learned how to shoot a rifle.

"I felt proud of myself," Gutierrez said.

Girl loads rifle to spook burglars (http://www.wishtv.com/dpps/news/strange/girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars-ob10-jgr_3543119)

The cat didn't know that rifles come in pink

[Lie]

Didn't say anything about her meeting the burglars again with the rifle.

[Spartaaaaa]

Another reason why gun control is a dumb idea.

[JustNoOne]

Yay for little girls holding guns =o

But mehh, i feel things are just right with this and just plain wrong.

[Chiri]

Another reason why gun control is a dumb idea.

So that 11 year old girls can threaten those who come in her home?
What if the intruders had been the ones with the gun?
What if she'd shot herself?
This could have gone wrong in so many ways.

[Sleeperdial]

Chiri don't try to justify gun control, its stupid.
Are you saying its bad that anyone can defend themselves?
Gun control wouldn't fix anything if they had guns.
And how the hell are you supposed to shoot yourself with a rifle?

[Kept]

The burglars wouldn't have come if there were no guns to steal in the house.

/problemsolved

[Sleeperdial]

You don't know that for sure, its just a possibility. Besides, if I was planning to steal crap, even if there turned out to be no guns I would steal if no one was home. Just think about it, it wouldn't make a difference.

[Kept]

"She said when the Marquez, Zubiate and Quintana got inside, she heard them talk about stealing guns in the home. Gutierrez and her family told KRQE News 13 that they knew one of the suspects and believed the group targeted the home to steal their guns."

According to this, if the guns didn't exist, their primary objective wouldn't exist, thus removing their incentive to even attempt to rob the house.

Now all we need is a confession.

[Chillax]

And how the hell are you supposed to shoot yourself with a rifle?

Little kids playing with a gun that has the safety switch off, BOOM. True, a gun would probably be a good defense against a robber, but how do you know the robber won't feel more threatened and actually pull the trigger? Most robbers use the gun as a threat, but how many actually shoot the victim?

[Sleeperdial]

Gun control has nothing to do with how many people get shot and not just threatened, something that needs to be realized is that bad people will have guns no matter what. The law isn't going to stop someone who's already breaking it from illegally getting a gun.

Let me point out that generally you have to try in order to shoot yourself with this gun which is pretty much the only gun that comes in pink. http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/25/pink_gun.jpg Especially since she has the short arms of a 11 year old girl.

And what I'm saying is, in a situation where no one was home and our objective didn't exist I would rob the place for what ever else they had.

[EndlessDreams]

lol, Sleeperdial actually understands the uselessness of gun control, unlike some people.

It was smart for her parents to teach their children on how to use a gun at an early age to protect their homes though.

[Kept]

And what I'm saying is, in a situation where no one was home and our objective didn't exist I would rob the place for what ever else they had.

So with that, we do know for sure, don't we? Since that's not the situation at all.

[Kueh]

This was like 2 miles from where I live.

[Sleeperdial]

Its what my parents did for me, I can't imagine what it would be like to go through life not being able to defend myself.

Edit: Kept, this is an awkward situation, thats why it made the news. So I talked about a regular situation considering that what Gun Control was erroneously designed for.

[Chiri]

Gun control saves lives. I find it ridiculously rude that you would call me stupid.
If you want to compare the death rates in the UK vs. the US then go ahead.


And how the hell are you supposed to shoot yourself with a rifle?
You were talking about gun control, which includes blowing your face off with a hand gun.
Regardless, you could easily shot something with a rifle, causing an unstable environment which could collapse on you. Boom, death.

[Kept]

Kept, this is an awkward situation, thats why it made the news. So I talked about a regular situation considering that what Gun Control was erroneously designed for.

Whether or not it made the news, it's still an event that could've been easily prevented had guns not been present in the household. It's all about the incentive.

I'm not talking about every case involving a robbery and a gun x.x

[Lan]

I approve of robbers being cut in half by katanas.

[Spartaaaaa]

Gun control saves lives. I find it ridiculously rude that you would call me stupid.
If you want to compare the death rates in the UK vs. the US then go ahead.


LOL guns are not the only thing that contributes to death. In the US, the majority of deaths are caused by abortions, tobacco, alcohol, heart attack, etc. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all human beings. If you want to be unarmed, go right ahead.

[Chiri]

To bear arms is a right of Americans, not human beings.
If it was a fundamental right, we would be born holding guns.
And it was set in place to allow the common citizen to band together and overthrow their government, if necessary. It's an antiquated custom from when we feared England's hold on the colonies.

Guns are one of the main contributors to violent death. Abortions and drugs do not belong in the same category.

While I understand that my choice to be unarmed allows be to be subject to that timebombs of people like you, I hardly find it necessary.

[Spartaaaaa]

To bear arms is a right of Americans, not human beings.
If it was a fundamental right, we would be born holding guns.
And it was set in place to allow the common citizen to band together and overthrow their government, if necessary. It's an antiquated custom from when we feared England's hold on the colonies.

Guns are one of the main contributors to violent death. Abortions and drugs do not belong in the same category.

While I understand that my choice to be unarmed allows be to be subject to that timebombs of people like you, I hardly find it necessary.

Just because it is a right does not mean that we are born with it. Besides, even if we are not literally born holding weapons, we are born with a self-defense instinct. The right to bear arms was officially set up in America AFTER the British were defeated, so clearly, the purpose of the second amendment was not to fight the British. Here is the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First of all, there is no mention of the British! Secondly the purpose of the right to bear arms is made clear, that it is for the security of a FREE state. You see, in a truly free country, an overpowered police force/martial law cannot be tolerated, as such, a militia, or a band of armed citizens are the main peacekeepers. I am deeply disturbed that you think such a concept is outdated.

You only mentioned death rate, not death by guns, so abortion and drugs perfectly fit within the scope of the discussion.

[Kueh]

To bear arms is a right of Americans, not human beings.
If it was a fundamental right, we would be born holding guns. Is it not a fundamental right to be able to have your own opinions? We aren't born with those though. There are many things that human beings deserve as rights, but we are not born with.

And it was set in place to allow the common citizen to band together and overthrow their government, if necessary. It's an antiquated custom from when we feared England's hold on the colonies. Being old and being antiquated are not the same thing. You must not keep up with current politics if you think that the mere threat of citizens with guns has not kept the government from doing a lot of things that it would have otherwise.

Guns are one of the main contributors to violent death. Abortions and drugs do not belong in the same category. This depends on your definition of violence. Do you think dismemberment is violent? If yes, abortion belongs, if not, something is wrong with you. Do you think having your own body becoming a toxin to itself is violent, so that your very blood becomes a poison? If yes, drugs belong, if not....

While I understand that my choice to be unarmed allows be to be subject to that timebombs of people like you, I hardly find it necessary.

While I think that the second amendment is definitely necessary, I do think that the accessibility of guns should be reduced. We don't need violent individuals or organizations having access to firearms.

[Chillax]

The right to bear arms was officially set up in America AFTER the British were defeated, so clearly, the purpose of the second amendment was not to fight the British. Here is the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." First of all, there is no mention of the British!

There is something called the War of 1812, so it's not like the British just poofed after the Revolutionary War concluded. You also have to take into account when the Second Amendment was written. The US did not have a strong army at the time, so most of the fighting was done by militias. Much of the US was still a frontier, and there were hostile Native Americans ready to fight Americans that tried to settle their lands. Although the French allied with the US during the Revolutionary War, the French were eager to undermine the US and egg on hostile Native Americans, and the British, who still retained territory in America, were keen to do the same. Under these circumstances, it would be very logical to carry a gun around, especially in the frontier.


Secondly the purpose of the right to bear arms is made clear, that it is for the security of a FREE state. You see, in a truly free country, an overpowered police force/martial law cannot be tolerated, as such, a militia, or a band of armed citizens are the main peacekeepers. I am deeply disturbed that you think such a concept is outdated.

On the same token, if the US was a truly free country, we wouldn't need people to represent us, e.g. House of Representatives, the President, etc. The US army and police forces are much more powerful than they were back when the Second Amendment was written, so I think it is safe to say that we don't need a body of armed citizens to keep the peace. There are such things called Neighborhood Watches that report to the police when something is fishy. Whether or not they are effective depends on how eager residents are to cooperate.

Of course gun-related homicides went way down after the UK banned guns, but knife-related homicides went up. With that said, it's still way harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun, and gun control may reduce the number of robbery-related homicides.


While I think that the second amendment is definitely necessary, I do think that the accessibility of guns should be reduced. We don't need violent individuals or organizations having access to firearms.

The question is where to draw the line. Some criminal organizations may obtain their firearms from friends or family members of age that have no criminal record.

[Tatsu]

By the way, no good robber will ever kill anyone. Why? Because when they find the body, it's a full blown murder investigation with quite a bit of people working on it. Even if you're living in a violent city like St. louis. Full blown murder investigation = Higher chances of you being caught.

Back to topic, when you're caught, you're being charged with murder and theft. Not just plain ol' theft. Kind of the same reason why conmen don't carry guns.

By the way, it's very very hard to pull the trigger when you're pointing a gun at a human being.

On a non-serious note, every time some guy in America grabs a gun and starts shooting people, there are more injuries than deaths. In Germany, every time some guy grabs a gun and starts shooting people, there are way more deaths than injuries.

[Justified]

They had a rifle so I was thinking, 'What should I do? 'What if they shoot me?'" Gutierrez said.

Are we ignoring the fact that the robbers were armed as well?

Sure, let's think about how dangerous it is for a child to know how to use a gun, even though nothing at all went wrong with it. Ignore the fact that armed robbers broke into the house when she was alone, this is FAR more serious.

Accidents are accidents. They'll happen with or without guns, for example this tragedy (http://www.mydesert.com/article/20100815/NEWS01/100815001/8-dead-12-hurt-at-off-road-race-near-Lucerne-Valley).
If we take away guns from the general populace, criminals will still find a way to get some. That's the whole reason they're criminals, they're doing things that they aren't supposed to. Also, now they KNOW that they have a massive upper-hand in whatever bad deeds they plan on doing. Guns trump pretty much everything else that a common person would have to defend themselves (in most cases, nothing).

The mentality that criminals gain from this advantage will boost crime rates, as well as crime success rates. Is it worth crippling the average man and empowering the criminal, just because accidents happen here or there?

[Spartaaaaa]

There is something called the War of 1812, so it's not like the British just poofed after the Revolutionary War concluded. You also have to take into account when the Second Amendment was written. The US did not have a strong army at the time, so most of the fighting was done by militias. Much of the US was still a frontier, and there were hostile Native Americans ready to fight Americans that tried to settle their lands. Although the French allied with the US during the Revolutionary War, the French were eager to undermine the US and egg on hostile Native Americans, and the British, who still retained territory in America, were keen to do the same. Under these circumstances, it would be very logical to carry a gun around, especially in the frontier.

You forgot to mention one other important rationale for having a gun: defense against a corrupt government. You see, the founding fathers probably figured out that no government will retain its integrity forever and that America was no exception.


On the same token, if the US was a truly free country, we wouldn't need people to represent us, e.g. House of Representatives, the President, etc. The US army and police forces are much more powerful than they were back when the Second Amendment was written, so I think it is safe to say that we don't need a body of armed citizens to keep the peace. There are such things called Neighborhood Watches that report to the police when something is fishy. Whether or not they are effective depends on how eager residents are to cooperate.

On the contrary, having some form of central government does not compromise the freedom of the people as long as it is set up properly. If you have ever read the constitution, you may have noticed that the powers of the central government are very strictly defined while the states/people have any power that is not specifically prohibited to them and not reserved for the central government (amendment 10). The US army is only there to protect against foreign invasion or suppress revolts, any other use for it requires unnecessary/intrusive martial law. Armed citizens removes the need for an overly powerful police force (which of course runs the high risk of becoming a police state).


Of course gun-related homicides went way down after the UK banned guns, but knife-related homicides went up. With that said, it's still way harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun, and gun control may reduce the number of robbery-related homicides.


Of course, it also follows that it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than with a knife (unless you're a ninja or something).

[Chillax]

I would like to see a small band of armed citizens go up against the army of a country the size of the US. I'm sure that a rifle or a shotgun would do well against tanks and bombs.

That would depend on your definition of true freedom. Does true freedom mean being represented by someone who may or may not share your beliefs? I hear plenty of people complaining about all the things the fed does wrong, but they seem to be happy with their level of freedom. Although the states can generate their own revenue, a lot of funds that the states use for specific tasks come from the fed, so it's not like the fed has no influence over the states.

Would armed citizens be better alternatives than the police? Some might carry out vigilante justice, and some may turn rogue. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you'll be able to get a shot off against criminals, since they oftentimes use the element of surprise.

There are other ways to protect your home than just using a gun. Prevention with window grilles, door locks, alarms, etc. can work as well. That should give you enough time to at least call the police and prepare yourself.

[Kueh]

That would depend on your definition of true freedom. Does true freedom mean being represented by someone who may or may not share your beliefs? I hear plenty of people complaining about all the things the fed does wrong, but they seem to be happy with their level of freedom.

By now, I'm going to assume that you live in the States. If you are not being properly represented, then you didn't vote. Even the 30 other parties in the United States are represented to a degree due to lobbying efforts on their parts, and they still vote for those who would represent their objectives.

The people who seem happy even though they feel they're injusticed by the system are not voting and are just not involved in politics.


Some criminal organizations may obtain their firearms from friends or family members of age that have no criminal record.

Would armed citizens be better alternatives than the police? Some might carry out vigilante justice, and some may turn rogue. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you'll be able to get a shot off against criminals, since they oftentimes use the element of surprise.

There are other ways to protect your home than just using a gun. Prevention with window grilles, door locks, alarms, etc. can work as well. That should give you enough time to at least call the police and prepare yourself.

Now you're talking what-if's and theoreticals. I would rather not use a number of deterrents that should give me enough time. I would much rather use methods that have worked, reliably and consistently.

(Besides, who says I can't have window grilles, alarm systems, And guns?)


The question is where to draw the line.

In politics, that's always the question. Not just when dealing with guns.

[Spartaaaaa]

I would like to see a small band of armed citizens go up against the army of a country the size of the US. I'm sure that a rifle or a shotgun would do well against tanks and bombs.

I'd also like to see a bunch of rag tag farmers stand up against the largest empire in the world... Oh wait, that already happened, and they won. If the government suddenly turned totalitarian, would you seriously not stand up against it? Even if the chances of winning are low, would you seriously just stand by and endure the abuse and oppression?


That would depend on your definition of true freedom. Does true freedom mean being represented by someone who may or may not share your beliefs? I hear plenty of people complaining about all the things the fed does wrong, but they seem to be happy with their level of freedom. Although the states can generate their own revenue, a lot of funds that the states use for specific tasks come from the fed, so it's not like the fed has no influence over the states.

Of course the feds can influence the states! If they couldn't do that, then there would be no point to the existence of the feds in the first place. It's only when the influence of the feds infringes on the rights of the states, as enumerated in the Constitution, does federal influence compromise freedom. The main purpose of the federal government is to maintain order, and protect the people and their rights.


Would armed citizens be better alternatives than the police? Some might carry out vigilante justice, and some may turn rogue. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you'll be able to get a shot off against criminals, since they oftentimes use the element of surprise.

There are other ways to protect your home than just using a gun. Prevention with window grilles, door locks, alarms, etc. can work as well. That should give you enough time to at least call the police and prepare yourself.

I never advocated the disbanding of the police force, I only said that a police force cannot get too powerful and run the risk of becoming an oppressive police state. I also never said that guns are the only means of self defense. While they are, in my opinion, one of the best means of self defense, I in no way discourage people from having all that other stuff you mentioned.

[Chillax]

By now, I'm going to assume that you live in the States. If you are not being properly represented, then you didn't vote. Even the 30 other parties in the United States are represented to a degree due to lobbying efforts on their parts, and they still vote for those who would represent their objectives. The people who seem happy even though they feel they're injusticed by the system are not voting and are just not involved in politics.

I voted in the 2008 election and I feel I'm relatively properly represented, but I was just pointing out that since the US is a republic, not a true democracy, we do not have true freedom. In the same way that we have people to represent us in the government, we also the police as a protective force to work on our behalf.


Now you're talking what-if's and theoreticals. I would rather not use a number of deterrents that should give me enough time. I would much rather use methods that have worked, reliably and consistently. (Besides, who says I can't have window grilles, alarm systems, And guns?)

The whole topic of gun control is about what-ifs and theoreticals. How do you know someone's going to attack you? How do you know that a gun will help you in that situation? Who says guns have worked reliably and consistently?


I'd also like to see a bunch of rag tag farmers stand up against the largest empire in the world... Oh wait, that already happened, and they won.

If you're talking about the US, you'd realize that America wouldn't have won without major involvement from the French. You also realize that Britain was trying to maintain the other parts of their empire, so their entire effort wasn't placed on America.


If the government suddenly turned totalitarian, would you seriously not stand up against it? Even if the chances of winning are low, would you seriously just stand by and endure the abuse and oppression?

No. But I believe that chances of a totalitarian US is extremely slim during my lifetime, so I don't feel like I'd need to own a gun to protect myself against a corrupt government.


The main purpose of the federal government is to maintain order, and protect the people and their rights...I also never said that guns are the only means of self defense.

That's why we have a police force established. Then why would you need guns? The purpose of gun control is to make it a lot harder for potential criminals to get guns. Mainly people with ties to powerful underground groups would be able to obtain guns if they were banned, and with the planed blockade on the Mexican border, it's going to be a lot harder to get guns and ammunition illegally. Would the shootings at Virginia Tech and Columbine have been so blown out if the attackers had used knives instead of guns? They both obtained their guns through either a gun show or from a local shop.

[Kueh]

Who says guns have worked reliably and consistently?

Well for one, there was a case where an 11 year old girl's mere possession of a firearm prevented theft and saved her life.

[Chillax]

Well for one, there was a case where an 11 year old girl's mere possession of a firearm prevented theft and saved her life.

And consistently. Just because 2 burglars on the street got scared of a girl and her gun doesn't mean other burglars wouldn't blow her face in if they felt threatened.

[Spartaaaaa]

And consistently. Just because 2 burglars on the street got scared of a girl and her gun doesn't mean other burglars wouldn't blow her face in if they felt threatened.

Then I guess we had better disarm all the cops too, because what if the criminals feel threatened by them and kill them? Besides, most burglars probably wouldn't carry a gun on them anyways, it doesn't make sense because smart burglars would break in when they think no one is home, hence removing the need to bring guns (this is just my speculation, maybe I'm wrong). Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, no burglar wants to get charged for theft AND murder and would thus be reluctant to kill anyone. As opposed to a gun wielding person at home trying to protect his/her family and property.

[Chillax]

Then I guess we had better disarm all the cops too, because what if the criminals feel threatened by them and kill them? Besides, most burglars probably wouldn't carry a gun on them anyways, it doesn't make sense because smart burglars would break in when they think no one is home, hence removing the need to bring guns (this is just my speculation, maybe I'm wrong). Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread, no burglar wants to get charged for theft AND murder and would thus be reluctant to kill anyone. As opposed to a gun wielding person at home trying to protect his/her family and property.

That's why police undergo training for those kinds of situations. The same can't always be said for ordinary citizens.

Then you don't need a gun if you're facing an unarmed burglar.

[Hiccup]

Lol the only time a kid should know where the guns are.

[Chiri]

Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Despite its largely urbanized population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm, and both the public and the police prefer this to continue. Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elite activity and 'gun sports' relatively uncommon.

Yeah, so whats wrong with police not having guns?
The UK seems to be doing pretty well with that.
The only problem is that the circulation of guns in the US is high, so gun control is a stickier situation.

[Chockeh]

Sounds like she wanted to shoot xD.

[Spartaaaaa]

If you're talking about the US, you'd realize that America wouldn't have won without major involvement from the French. You also realize that Britain was trying to maintain the other parts of their empire, so their entire effort wasn't placed on America.

And similarly, if a revolution broke out in the United States for whatever reason, the establishment would face similar problems that Britain faced. The United States is currently involved in about a hundred different wars around the world (and I doubt that will change), and foreign enemies of the US will most likely aid the revolutionaries if such a situation does happen.


No. But I believe that chances of a totalitarian US is extremely slim during my lifetime, so I don't feel like I'd need to own a gun to protect myself against a corrupt government.

Even if it the possibility seems slim, the threat of it is still there, and it's always good to be prepared. Most American colonists in 1760 probably did not expect to fight a revolution within two decades, which is why that we can never get complacent regarding things related to government. Remember that power corrupts people and that no government is immune to corruption.


That's why we have a police force established. Then why would you need guns? The purpose of gun control is to make it a lot harder for potential criminals to get guns. Mainly people with ties to powerful underground groups would be able to obtain guns if they were banned, and with the planed blockade on the Mexican border, it's going to be a lot harder to get guns and ammunition illegally. Would the shootings at Virginia Tech and Columbine have been so blown out if the attackers had used knives instead of guns? They both obtained their guns through either a gun show or from a local shop.

A gun is still useful because it is "plan B" in case the police fails (remember that the police aren't omnipotent). Although criminals would have a harder time getting weapons in an absolute gun control situation, it still doesn't mean that they can't get guns at all. Think about it, narcotics are illegal in the United States, but millions still get their hands on them every year despite continuously escalating efforts to stop drug abuse. Similarly, if criminals really wanted guns, they would be able to get them (remember that Mexico isn't the only place where one can get illegal things and that at this point, securing the border is going to be really difficult), effectively leaving law-abiding citizens with no guns while leaving the criminals with guns. Blaming Columbine on guns is sort of like blaming obesity on spoons. In the end, it was two deranged teenagers devoid of morals that ultimately pulled the trigger, and not the guns walking around by themselves killing people. This really embodies my problem with gun control, in that the best way to deal with crime is to instill children with moral christian (gasp!) principles that teach the sanctity of life rather than make all these draconian weapon restriction laws.

[Chillax]

And similarly, if a revolution broke out in the United States for whatever reason, the establishment would face similar problems that Britain faced. The United States is currently involved in about a hundred different wars around the world (and I doubt that will change), and foreign enemies of the US will most likely aid the revolutionaries if such a situation does happen.

The difference? Troops from Britain took weeks or even months to get across the Atlantic while it can take less than a day for modern troops to do the same thing. Mobilization is much, much easier than it was back then. The current US military has an assortment of weapons at their disposal, not just puny cannonballs and lame muskets. There are also the National Guard and Army Reserves (if there are any reserves left from fighting foreign wars). If properly carried out, the rebellion would be quelled quickly, especially if the media was hushed. The US can also threaten the other parts of the world with nukes should they try to help.


Even if it the possibility seems slim, the threat of it is still there, and it's always good to be prepared. Most American colonists in 1760 probably did not expect to fight a revolution within two decades, which is why that we can never get complacent regarding things related to government. Remember that power corrupts people and that no government is immune to corruption.

For what reason would the US become totalitarian? If in the unlikely chance it did become totalitarian, do you think the new totalitarian government would announce itself to the world? They would operate in secrecy until escape is impossible. A gun without armor piercing rounds would probably not help. You'd need to order a tank or a fighter plane to do much good against people with Kevlar armor and armored vehicles.


A gun is still useful because it is "plan B" in case the police fails (remember that the police aren't omnipotent). Although criminals would have a harder time getting weapons in an absolute gun control situation, it still doesn't mean that they can't get guns at all. Think about it, narcotics are illegal in the United States, but millions still get their hands on them every year despite continuously escalating efforts to stop drug abuse. Similarly, if criminals really wanted guns, they would be able to get them (remember that Mexico isn't the only place where one can get illegal things and that at this point, securing the border is going to be really difficult), effectively leaving law-abiding citizens with no guns while leaving the criminals with guns. Blaming Columbine on guns is sort of like blaming obesity on spoons. In the end, it was two deranged teenagers devoid of morals that ultimately pulled the trigger, and not the guns walking around by themselves killing people. This really embodies my problem with gun control, in that the best way to deal with crime is to instill children with moral christian (gasp!) principles that teach the sanctity of life rather than make all these draconian weapon restriction laws.

I did not state that guns, and not these killers, were at fault in these slayings. I stated that casualties would likely have been less severe had guns been controlled before the killers were able to obtain their hands on them using legal means. They probably would have had to resort to some less-efficient weapon.

Mexico is the main place where guns and narcotics come from, since land transport is way easier than overseas transport, which is one of the reasons that there is a planned border blockade. Drugs are easy to transport; guns, not so much so. The criminals likely to rob your house probably won't be able to pay for the smuggled guns, let alone find the gun dealers, since they'll rise in price due to higher risk and cost of shipping.

In the meanwhile, you can try your luck with missionary work in South Central in LA.

[Spartaaaaa]

The difference? Troops from Britain took weeks or even months to get across the Atlantic while it can take less than a day for modern troops to do the same thing. Mobilization is much, much easier than it was back then. The current US military has an assortment of weapons at their disposal, not just puny cannonballs and lame muskets. There are also the National Guard and Army Reserves (if there are any reserves left from fighting foreign wars). If properly carried out, the rebellion would be quelled quickly, especially if the media was hushed. The US can also threaten the other parts of the world with nukes should they try to help.

I never said that it would be easy to defeat the United States in a war, however, that does not mean that it is impossible or that we should just sit around and do nothing if the need for a revolution ever arises.


For what reason would the US become totalitarian? If in the unlikely chance it did become totalitarian, do you think the new totalitarian government would announce itself to the world? They would operate in secrecy until escape is impossible. A gun without armor piercing rounds would probably not help. You'd need to order a tank or a fighter plane to do much good against people with Kevlar armor and armored vehicles.

For one, America is already quickly becoming communist. Don't believe it? Then read this article: Are You a Practicing Communist? (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/america.htm) A government that does wrong does not need to announce it to everyone to get the word out. As far as I know, no totalitarian government has ever managed to keep it a secret for very long. A gun with no armor piercing rounds is still better than knives and archery (which is what Americans would be reduced to if absolute gun control became law).


I did not state that guns, and not these killers, were at fault in these slayings. I stated that casualties would likely have been less severe had guns been controlled before the killers were able to obtain their hands on them using legal means. They probably would have had to resort to some less-efficient weapon.

The problem though, is that the killings will still continue, and the government would then move to ban knives and other weapons as well. What will follow will be a series of draconian laws regulating how sharp kitchen knives can be or laws banning any sharp hand held object. But even with that, the killing will still continue because the root of the problem hasn't been dealt with yet. They may even one day enact a law prohibiting you from having limbs (with the rationale being, "the police and government officials have limbs with which to protect us and do everything for us, so we have no reason to have limbs of our own"). That last point was pure speculation, but the point is, gun control is not going to reduce the amount of crime. If someone really wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it.


Mexico is the main place where guns and narcotics come from, since land transport is way easier than overseas transport, which is one of the reasons that there is a planned border blockade. Drugs are easy to transport; guns, not so much so. The criminals likely to rob your house probably won't be able to pay for the smuggled guns, let alone find the gun dealers, since they'll rise in price due to higher risk and cost of shipping.

Smuggling overseas, may not be as difficult as you think. During the Opium Wars in the 19th century, the amount of opium being smuggled into China was such a problem that China went to war with Britain over it. Besides, do you honestly think that the border is going to be secured tightly anytime soon? Do you realize that Arizona has been sued many times over its immigration laws and that there is a massive amount of resistance to securing the border?

[Lan]

Why are you guys still arguing? In this case it was a good thing for the little girl to have a gun. Let's end it at that or you can take this to the Library.

[Spartaaaaa]

Why are you guys still arguing? In this case it was a good thing for the little girl to have a gun. Let's end it at that or you can take this to the Library.

Debates are fun and educational, plus I can get a lot of gold this way =)

[Chillax]

Why are you guys still arguing? In this case it was a good thing for the little girl to have a gun. Let's end it at that or you can take this to the Library.

http://i1020.photobucket.com/albums/af321/ultima_halo/someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg

Just kidding. Since so many of us are of voting age or close to voting age, gun control is a good topic to discuss because it shows up many times on the ballot. It's great to exchange ideas with other people, even if they have differing opinions. Maybe a mod could move this to the Library?


I never said that it would be easy to defeat the United States in a war, however, that does not mean that it is impossible or that we should just sit around and do nothing if the need for a revolution ever arises.

Then perhaps you would like to try pre-emptive measures like campaigning for a government position so you can change it from the inside. That would be much more helpful than just having your hunting rifle ready to shoot totalitarian policemen.


For one, America is already quickly becoming communist. Don't believe it? Then read this article: Are You a Practicing Communist? A government that does wrong does not need to announce it to everyone to get the word out. As far as I know, no totalitarian government has ever managed to keep it a secret for very long. A gun with no armor piercing rounds is still better than knives and archery (which is what Americans would be reduced to if absolute gun control became law).

Tell me a government, past or present, that has not included one of those planks as part of its tenets. Communism=/=Totalitarianism, and the ideal of Communism is not an explicitly bad thing. Was Jacob a Communist for plotting and succeeding at taking Esau's inheritance? Was Solomon a Communist for taking tribute for his temple? The guy who wrote the article can tell people how not to be a practicing communist, but he's probably a practicing communist as well, unless he's a hermit that lives in the mountains.


The problem though, is that the killings will still continue, and the government would then move to ban knives and other weapons as well. What will follow will be a series of draconian laws regulating how sharp kitchen knives can be or laws banning any sharp hand held object. But even with that, the killing will still continue because the root of the problem hasn't been dealt with yet. They may even one day enact a law prohibiting you from having limbs (with the rationale being, "the police and government officials have limbs with which to protect us and do everything for us, so we have no reason to have limbs of our own"). That last point was pure speculation, but the point is, gun control is not going to reduce the amount of crime. If someone really wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it.

I doubt they would go that far as to ban knives. Unlike guns, knives are used in household cooking, cutting open letters, and so on. I can't find a practical use for guns other than hunting animals for food or killing other people. As for your limb example, your train of logic on that point is absurd. If someone wants to commit a crime, he/she will do so, but you can limit the availabilty of tools that he/she can use.


Smuggling overseas, may not be as difficult as you think. During the Opium Wars in the 19th century, the amount of opium being smuggled into China was such a problem that China went to war with Britain over it. Besides, do you honestly think that the border is going to be secured tightly anytime soon? Do you realize that Arizona has been sued many times over its immigration laws and that there is a massive amount of resistance to securing the border?

You do realize that China was poorly equipped to fight the European invaders, let alone control the flow of drugs into the country? There were plenty of unprotected places on China's coast where the smugglers could dock. They had no means to stop the smuggling, while the US has the Coast Guard and more secure docks.

In fact, I do believe the border will be more protected in the near future. Drug-related violence in Mexico is skyrocketing, so much so that the US has warned people from going into Mexico. Wait for some more drug-related violence to spread to border areas in the US, and you'll see people clamoring for more border protection.

[Lan]

Personally I can see the good guns can do but I still dislike how easy they are to obtain since most/all of the hand guns in Canada come from the US -_-

[Syrphid]

The problem though, is that the killings will still continue, and the government would then move to ban knives and other weapons as well. What will follow will be a series of draconian laws regulating how sharp kitchen knives can be or laws banning any sharp hand held object. But even with that, the killing will still continue because the root of the problem hasn't been dealt with yet. They may even one day enact a law prohibiting you from having limbs (with the rationale being, "the police and government officials have limbs with which to protect us and do everything for us, so we have no reason to have limbs of our own"). That last point was pure speculation, but the point is, gun control is not going to reduce the amount of crime. If someone really wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it.

Guns are designed to intimidate, maim and kill, and can do so at long range, the only prerequisite being the ability to aim. Knives have actual legitimate use.

Guns are a great equalizer that give a criminal hope in situations he would otherwise balk at. A single gunman can hold a crowd hostage, a single knifeman will get his arms ripped off.

Guns are incredibly easy to use. A child can very easily kill with a gun, just by pulling a trigger. It takes serious malicious intent to put muscle behind a knife, and technique to make it lethal (or repeated thrusts and slashes, which also requires intent to kill).

If someone really wants to commit a crime, they are far less likely to go through with it if they lack the proper tools. I don't see how gun control fails to limit crime or accidental injury.