|
|
|
|
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/1/2009 3:26:54 PM |
I would be scared to live some place where only criminals could own firearms. As a law abiding citizen I think I should be allowed to own a firearm if I so choose.
Agreed
If I had children I would probably reconsider owning firearms, and at the very least I would lock it away.
You should be doing that anyways
But as it is, I own several firearms and they pose no threat whatsoever to anyone who doesn't pose a threat to me. Unless you break into my house or try to carjack me, you would never know. But if you do, I will shoot to kill and swear I was in fear for my life.
Do you really need to shoot to kill? Don't you think aiming for the stomach is enough? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/1/2009 3:32:47 PM |
[ I would lock it away.]
You should be doing that anyways
Do you really need to shoot to kill? Don't you think aiming for the stomach is enough?
What good will my AR or Glock or 1911 or whatever I choose to grab do me if it is locked up in a safe while my door is being kicked in? Not a lot. Worthless. Train your children. My father trained me well, and I never touched or played with his weapons even though I had ample opportunity to do so.
If I ever have to shoot someone I am going to aim COM (center of mass) and pull the trigger until they are either no-longer a threat, or I hit slide-lock. If they are still a threat, I will do a mag-change and repeat, if possible.
I am not worried about killing them, either way, it's not important at the moment. I am worried about STOPPING THEM. After they are stopped I will of course call 911 and attempt to preserve their life after disarming/rendering them completely harmless to myself. Stopping the threat is what counts. Afterwards, be a humanitarian. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/1/2009 6:06:57 PM | Do you really need to shoot to kill? Don't you think aiming for the stomach is enough
You shoot to stop the threat. Thats center mass. If you shoot to wound the criminal has the arguement that he wasn't really a threat since you felt that only wounding him was enough. That doesn't mean to intentionally kill the criminal, even though death is often the result of being hit center mass.
To Ismene, my statement stands. You have various insurances "just in case". Not because you plan on or what something to happen, but just incase that it does. Owning and carrying a firearm is the exact same thing. Just incase something were to happen. You can't get insurance and get it to cover something after the fact, just like you can't carry a gun to prevent a rape, robbery, murder thats already taken place. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/1/2009 9:38:15 PM | I pack heat where ever I go.
For home protection I have a Binford Tim 'the toolman' Taylor Super Soaker 9000 Water Gun. More power!! Ar ar ar ar ar!!
When I walk the dangerous sidewalks of Sesame Street I carry a Dr. Suess .45 Pop Gun made by Hasbro ;)
I'll cap any Muppet that tries anything on me so help me God. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/1/2009 10:18:22 PM | Obviously you lack an understanding of some of the facts about rape. This is a good link for you to look at. It's time to stop blaming the victim. You have cultivated this "broken" mentality about yourself that puts the blame on you, as such it has made you willing to accept anything anyone does to you (or at least, you are fine with being helpless to fight back). It's just not healthy. I am not blaming the victim. That's a ridiculous assertion and train of thought, if you have read my other posts and were able to comprehend them. I think you have no other avenue of counter claim for the reasonable arguments I have made, so now your tactic is to effect an ad hominem attack--attack the person not the argument. I lack no understanding about rape whatsoever.
Are you saying that you are so smart that noone could ever make you a victim? In that case, I don't think you have progressed past 19 except in appearance. Another ad hominem attack. Again, if you read my posts, I asserted nothing of the kind. I did say that one thing that can make someone more vulnerable to crime is where and how you live. And, indeed, according to statistics, those who carry guns are more likely to end up hurt than those who don't. You are trying to put me down because you have no other amunition with which to counter my argumentative points.
Because someone doesn't want to carry around a gun they have a "broken mentality"?? Gosh, I wish I could say what I really thought of your attempts to belittle me, but I don't want to get banned. What I will say is that it is patently obvious to anyone with a brain that that is exactly what you are trying to do in order to try to garner a sense of having made some winning points here. You haven't. Healthy? I don't think you are capable of recognizing true mental health, much less being aware of what a true, honest and logical argument is. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 12:54:38 AM | Because someone doesn't want to carry around a gun they have a "broken mentality"??
See, now you are minimizing your platform. Before it was "I could never date..., I hate..., they cause..., etc. etc. etc."
Now it's just "I choose not to carry."
Everything you just posted is a minimization of your position and a huge back-pedaling feat.
I put myself in a vulnerable situation when I was 19 years old, that was 40 years ago. I have more sense now. And obviously you don't understand logic
Looks like you took the blame there. It also looks like you are claiming that you couldn't be so gullible now that you are almost 60. So where do you get off saying that you aren't blaming yourself for what happened? You obviously feel it was your fault as you feel that you are the one in control of the situation. What other logical conclusion is there? You are keen on logic, so explain.
I have been threatened by someone with a gun, to the point I was given unasked for police protection for a week. That incident, which happened in my late forties
Also, I would like to point out, that no, you don't have enough sense to avoid getting yourself in trouble, at least you didn't learn anything in the 20+ years from 19 to your late 40's according to this, so why should we assume that you are somehow NOW able to avoid all bad situations? I am glad you got lucky.
All of your examples, such as insurance and fire extinguishers, are false analogies. Not good logic at all but fallacious reasoning
If a fire occurs, I grab a fire extinguisher. If an intruder kicks in my door, I grab my G17. It doesn't take a mental giant to see the similarity in situation here. There is no logical fallacy being committed.
I think you have no other avenue of counter claim for the reasonable arguments I have made
If you were making a logical argument I would be able to respond in kind to it. However, all you have done is say that you don't like guns because SOMEHOW an inanimate object is bad or causes crime.
What is not understood by so many Americans is that there is a mindset, a limited, provincial, uneducated mindset about guns. The rest of the modern Western world does not share your perspective, and they are all laughing at you.
There is some ad hominum for you, how do you like that? Also some elitism and a bunch of other things. I am willing to bet I know quite a bit more about "mental health" than than yourself considering I have endured plenty of lecturing as well as clinical situations involving mental health and those who are ill to various degrees. But hey, why should I argue with someone about mental health when they already told me that they are crazy upon being faced with something that they have claimed they cannot prove...
Yes, I'm just crazy that way.... (from the last page where, when confronted with some of the rediculous (or as you would put it...illogical) BS you have spouted about inanimate objects causing crime, you resorted to the "Oh I don't have a clue how to support my view, but I will say something and post a smiley-face, WOOT! 1!11!!!")
Also, I suggest that you call your brother and work things out in your relationship. I am sure that would make the both of you feel better.
I would never get into a relationship with someone who had a gun or guns | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 12:57:28 AM | you know.....those stastics that start with :those who have guns.....and end with those that dont..............make about as much sense as saying...............baseball batters are more likely to hit home runs that the ones pitching to them..........
you gotta understand.......the "stastics" are skewed....of course people with guns are more likely to shoot themselves........AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WITHOUT GUNS.................geeze.........i can make up all kinds of "stastics" about anything i dont like....ie.............golfers are 47% more likely to get killed on a golf course than non golfers........[who arent on a golf course].........or.............automobile drivers are 67%more likely to be killed in california than in antiartica.............so......according to your "logic"...........golf courses and auto's oughta be banned.
simply put....your arguements against guns holds no water...............trust me.....noboddy cares that you personally dont like guns and dont care to own them......thats your choice and right............where those of us who DO have a problem is when people like you try to take away OUR choices and rights | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:16:45 AM | | msg 885: I guess it is just desperation on your part, not having any valid argumentative points to do fair battle with. 1. I didn't change my position. Didn't use the word 'choose,' though I don't agree with the connotation you are putting on it as opposed to want. Of course I don't want to carry gun around because I do, indeed, hate them. 2. I didn't place myself in a vulnerable situation the time someone threatened me with at gun. It was at work. I was a community college instructor. Do you think it is a hazardous profession, being a college teacher and that I was not using good judgement in going to work? 3. As far as your response to the ad hominem point: you simply do not understand what an ad hominem attack is. 3. You are also apparently not able to recognize sarcasm. 4. My HALF brother was a police officer when I was a child; he is much older and I have not been in contact with him in many, many years. So, in fact, I do not have a relationship with anyone who has or carries a gun, and I wouldn't. In any case, one cannot choose one's relatives, so if I were related to someone who owns a gun, it would not be something I had any control over anyway. Everything in your post, EVERYTHING, is a personal attack on me---not a response to the OP---can you understand that? That is why what your are doing is ad hominen. You cannot argue the topic and my stance on it with and credible empirical evidence or with logic, so you just continue to attack me over and over again. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:33:05 AM | I didn't place myself in a vulnerable situation the time someone threatened me with at gun. It was at work. I was a community college instructor. Do you think it is a hazardous profession, being a college teacher and that I was not using good judgement in going to work?
So what you are indeed saying, is that no-matter WHAT a person does, they may be at risk for violent acts being committed against their person? Isn't that what we have been trying to get you to this entire time? Also, this goes in DIRECT contradiction to what you have told us previously:
Never felt I needed a gun to protect myself. Your fears, imo, are excessive and irrational.
Apparently my "fears" (which as stated, self-defence is the secondary purpose of most of my firearms) are not so irrational, hmmm?
Thankyou for validating my point.
Also, you have cited your brother as a source of firearms knowledge that you are supposedly so full of, which has given you your elitist stance over "most people".:
I have more knowledge of and experience of the issue of gun possession and use by both joe public and the police, having a half brother who was in the police force, than most people.
I would also inform you that unless they are HRT/SWAT a lot of police officers who do not shoot as a hobby, are usually pretty ignorant about firearms and aren't very proficient in their use. I have, as stated before, had to correct many a bad habit on the range due to lack of training, lack of weapon familiarity, etc. Some departments are better than others.
Apparently:
My HALF brother was a police officer when I was a child; he is much older and I have not been in contact with him in many, many years
You might not know NEAR as much as you claim to know. At least, based on how you just totally distanced yourself from him there. Seems like you haven't heard anything from the guy in MANY years, and didn't know him very well then. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:39:59 AM |
So what you are indeed saying, is that no-matter WHAT a person does, they may be at risk for violent acts being committed against their person? Isn't that what we have been trying to get you to this entire time? Also, this goes in DIRECT contradiction to what you have told us previously:
Thankyou for validating my point I have not validated YOUR point. I said in one of my first posts that there is crime in America and that I was, indeed, threatened with a gun in a situation over which I had no control. You have proven either you haven't read my posts, though you like to attack me for them, or that you are incapable of understand what they say. I do realize there is crime, of course. What is irrational is thinking it is going to happen at any time, any where, when, in fact, statistics prove that unless you place yourself in a truly hazardous situation, like a high crime area at night, you are not that likely to experience such a situation. Also, those who carry a gun for protection are actually more likely to be harmed than those who don't. My situation was dealth with effectively and efficiently by the authorities. I only brought up the situation to make the point that you are completely over looking, which is that I am quite aware of crime exisiting as I have been on the potential receiving end of it, and yet, I am able to reason logically and realize that rapists and murderers are not lurking about everywhere and there is no need to live your life in fear of something happening to you at any moment. So, I didn't contradict myself at all, if you had read and understood my previous post. And I have not validated any point you have made and doubt, given your apparent complete lack of ability to reason logically, that I ever would. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:49:10 AM |
Also, those who carry a gun for protection are actually more likely to be harmed than those who don't. My situation was dealth with effectively and efficiently by the authorities.
Ah...see, here is the crux of the matter. You feel that anything you can get yourself into living your life properly, the "authorities" can get you out of, if anyone can. Police response times are horrible. If I were a criminal and you said "Okay, as soon as you hit my front door, I am calling the cops and locking myself in the bathroom" (I don't know what you would do, I am just guessing, you sure wouldn't harm me, lol), I would be tickled pink. So much could be done inside 15 minutes or so, and if I was of a mind to do it, I never saw a door I couldn't get through in 15 seconds or less on the interior of a home/appartment. At the very least, you would be missing quite a bit of stuff.
My point is this, while it is optimal to let a police officer do the dirty work, as that is what they make an average of $25/hr for in my country, it is not always going to be an option. Sometimes 15 minutes is 14:45 too long.
You have chosen to rely on another person to protect you. I have chosen to rely on both myself, and others. However, I would ask you another question. Something I doubt you have thought about one whit.
You would NEVER date a guy who CC's (Conceiled Carry). However, I know people who will ONLY hire CC permit holders. Kinda wierd I might think, and totally mortifying, you would say.
Think about it. A CC holder has gone through an extensive background check, has been vetted throughout the course of their life as being a stable, proper citizen, and has been verified to be someone without a background of violence (what you seek to avoid).
Therefore, if you met someone on POF who was a CC holder and went on a blind date with them, I would dare say that you would be taking a MUCH SMALLER risk than meeting a non CC holder, just based on the numbers.
Just some food for thought that I doubt you mulled over. (the people who hire are looking for the same thing, upstanding employees without THEM having to do an extensive background check). | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 1:48:32 PM |
I do realize there is crime, of course.
What is irrational is thinking it is going to happen at any time, any where, when, in fact, statistics prove that unless you place yourself in a truly hazardous situation, like a high crime area at night, you are not that likely to experience such a situation.
You fail to realize that your statement attempts to blame the victim. You do know that harmless persons, mostly by necessity, also live in these “high crimes areas”. I do not have an argument against your wish to remain unarmed; but I do not appreciate your calling me and other gun owners, “paranoid and afraid”. I am neither.
My guns give me a sense of security most other women do not feel. My firearms are merely equalizers against a stronger intruder. You have admitted that you freely accepted police protection; armed no doubt. If you truly believed in your stance here you would not have accepted their services. After all, you were not under siege. But if you were you admit that you encourage and will rely on armed protective services. A bit of hypocrisy here I believe. I too have been accosted and threatened with great bodily harm; but no police protection here. Just me……..and my firearms.
given your apparent complete lack of ability to reason logically,
Not true; JWG is knowledge and reasonable. His argument holds much validity. Factually, it is your off the cuff remarks, most without substance, that renders your argument weak
The vast majority of people in the US who feel they need to have a gun don't actually need it at all.
And you know this how? Incredibly presumptuous sweeping statement; where is your empirical evidence for this statement? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 6:35:27 PM | | I don't feel like looking back through the post to find the quote, but crime can happen at anytime and anywhere. Even "good parts of town" have crime. While they may not see the open prostitution, drug deals etc, like you'll see in a "bad part of town", crime is still there. There are still drug deals that take place, domestics, because someone caught their wife when she was supposed to be at soccer practice with the kids, thieves target these area's since they often have nicer stuff to steal and homeowners, like yourself, who are likely to just roll over and take whatever is coming and not try to fight back. In my hometown one of the schools with the biggest drug problem was the nicest school in town. This schools tution match and even passes that of a university tution. The reason is that the kids can afford it. Drugs are the root of other crimes, but thats another topic all together. Point being is that there is no such thing as a nice, crimefree area of town | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 6:55:49 PM | The reason that crime happens every where is because crime is nothing more than a label some people put on predictable, common, willful human behavior. Crime stems from the mind and the choice to act, as well as natural abilities that are organic in all human brains. In other words there are stupid people in every house in America.
On a side note I have been practicing at the gun range for personal protection with my new Uzi and Ak-47. Any body robs me and you will be havin flashbacks to Vietnam even if you weren't born yet.  | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/2/2009 7:10:08 PM | | Bruce, I remember when 7.62x39 was cheap fodder akin to .22 rimfire. Now you pay dearly for it. Be safe and have fun (and hold up on stocking, stuff is coming back onto the market! I just picked up 1,000 rounds of Ranger Talon in .45 for $499 including shipping about a month ago). | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/10/2009 5:30:52 PM | Police: Man killed fiancee day before wedding
(AP) – 20 hours ago
WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. — Police say a Florida man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to get married.
Winter Springs Police Chief Kevin Brunelle says the shooting appears to be a "tragic accident," but investigators were waiting for forensic results.
Sixty-two-year-old John Tabutt (ta-bit) told investigators he thought he heard an intruder early Friday morning, got his gun and fired at a figure in the dark hallway.
He struck his live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore. Family members say the couple planned to get married Saturday in a small ceremony.
Tabutt said he thought she was next to him in bed the whole night. He has not been charged.
Winter Springs is about 15 miles northeast of Orlando. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:00:47 PM | where is your empirical evidence for this statement? Statistics. Look at the statistics for where you live. Statistics on violent crime, on gun violence, on other reasons that put people at risk. Figure out how much danger you are actually in. Realize there is more chance you will be killed in your car driving to work than by someone with a gun. Are you going to give up your car and start taking the bus because it is safer?
Police: Man killed fiancee day before wedding
(AP) – 20 hours ago
WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. — Police say a Florida man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to get married. Winter Springs Police Chief Kevin Brunelle says the shooting appears to be a "tragic accident," but investigators were waiting for forensic results. Sixty-two-year-old John Tabutt (ta-bit) told investigators he thought he heard an intruder early Friday morning, got his gun and fired at a figure in the dark hallway. He struck his live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore. Family members say the couple planned to get married Saturday in a small ceremony. Tabutt said he thought she was next to him in bed the whole night. He has not been charged.
When you have a gun in the home, this is far more likely to happen, based on the statistics, than that you will protect yourself from an attack by a criminal. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS AT HOME.
| |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:21:31 PM |
Guns at home would be considered a fail-safe option, a Sword of Damocles, that sits above the leaders to let them know they can push us too far.
You show remarkable restraint then, considering the actions of the people in Wall Street, with the complicity of your Congress, who've brought financial ruin to your country and most of the world.
What would it take for you to use your guns to expel the lobbyists and corporate criminals from your corridors of power?
It's that very poverty and inequality and sense of powerlessness which creates the conditions that allow much of crime to breed.
I'm joking of course, because it seems this 'fail-safe' is only reserved for the people you run across in your immediate vicinity, the result of your leaders' actions, and not the cause?
I heard in the news of a woman who sued her local sheriff for the right to carry a concealed weapon at her childrens' soccer match (just in case things got out of hand!). She was shot dead by her husband in her kitchen as she Skyped with a family friend. He gun provided a false sense of security perhaps?
The problem with this love affair with deadly weapons is some people are not as disciplined with securing them as others. For every kid who adheres to responsible handling of guns, there's another having his brains blown out by a schoolfriend. With all of these deadly weapons around and the constitutional right to have them, it's not surprising the US is over-represented in the firearm-death statistics. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:32:44 PM |
On a side note I have been practicing at the gun range for personal protection with my new Uzi and Ak-47. Any body robs me and you will be havin flashbacks to Vietnam even if you weren't born yet.
These are sub-machineguns, right? And you need them for personal protection? And you're quite happy to fill somebody full of holes with them if they try to rob you?
The reason that crime happens every where is because crime is nothing more than a label some people put on predictable, common, willful human behavior. Crime stems from the mind and the choice to act, as well as natural abilities that are organic in all human brains. In other words there are stupid people in every house in America.
And crime has nothing to do with poverty and disenfranchisement? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 7:51:11 AM |
On a side note I have been practicing at the gun range for personal protection with my new Uzi and Ak-47. Any body robs me and you will be havin flashbacks to Vietnam even if you weren't born yet.
your foot is probably in more danger than the robber. and everybody for a block in a half will be thanking you for shooting the hell out of their house. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:29:23 AM |
When you have a gun in the home, this is far more likely to happen, based on the statistics, than that you will protect yourself from an attack by a criminal. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS AT HOME
I can post dozens, if not hundreds of stories about people using firearms for selfdefense. You can't carelessness or stupid. Accidents are going to happen regardless of what it is | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:32:39 AM | I can post dozens, if not hundreds of stories about people using firearms for selfdefense. Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence. I was asked to give empirical evidence. All the statistics and data, easily found on the internet, support the contention that it is more dangerous to have a firearm in the home than not to have one and that people more often injure or kill themselves or a family member than they harm or kill an intruder or deflect criminal activity. So, your 'hundreds' of stories don't add up to hard data: i.e., empirical evidence. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:40:59 AM |
These are sub-machineguns, right? And you need them for personal protection? And you're quite happy to fill somebody full of holes with them if they try to rob you?
I doubt they are. Its most likely that they're semi-auto versions or clones of the select fire version. Thats true of most of the "assualt weapons" and "machine guns" that are out there.
And crime has nothing to do with poverty and disenfranchisement?
A lot of the people committing crimes don't vote so your disenfranchisement theory really has nothing to stand on. Poverty may play a small role in some crimes, but a lot of crime is from other causes | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:56:40 AM |
Anecdotal evidence is not empirical evidence. I was asked to give empirical evidence. All the statistics and data, easily found on the internet, support the contention that it is more dangerous to have a firearm in the home than not to have one and that people more often injure or kill themselves or a family member than they harm or kill an intruder or deflect criminal activity. So, your 'hundreds' of stories don't add up to hard data: i.e., empirical evidence.
You do realize that the "increased risk" to the gun owner is mostly from suicides and when its a spouses its often a domestic issue. Both could easily happen with a firearm. If someone wants to kill themselves they will, gun or no gun. If someone wants to harm their spouse they will, gun or no gun. The gun itself does nothing to increase the risk. Its nothing more than a means. Just like a ballbat, kitchenknife, electric cord, heavy blunt objects, etc. I'm not exaggerating my hundreds of stories. Pick up any NRA magazine and with in the first few pages will be able a 1/2 dozen recent stories and people defending themselves with a firearm. There are other firearm publications that do this too. They'll also include the news source of the story so that it can be verified. If you'd like I can start posting 2 stories to every 1 of wudgers negative ones. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:57:36 AM | thats cool and all but Guns don't kill people,people kill people, guns might make it easier but People have to pull the trigger. Its not really all about self defense anyways its about interpreting our Constitution,you know the ole the right to keep and bear arms. the argument that this was intended for militia is a great one but in these times of Economic and Political turmoil I think it is even more important that we honor the Constitution and continue allowing Americans to Keep and Bear arms unconditionally.
All the statistics and data,easily found on the internet All, really? How do you know about the deflect criminal activity? I mean if you live in a neighborhood and your neighbors know you have a gun, this info gets around,some would be burglars hear this info and say well we better not break into the Jones's they have a gun, I am sure that happens sometimes. Also what about all of the incidents that aren't reported to the Police where someone hears someone trying to break in so that grab their gun and investigate the would be burglar sees them and runs away before breaking in, the homeowner checks the locks and goes back to bed, Or the people walking on the street late at night when they are accosted by a group of would be attackers, the man is cool and all and lets the would be thugs know he is packing the thugs leave without incident...these types of things happen all the time and no Police report is filed so all of your statistics really don't reflect the true effectiveness of Gun ownership... | |
|
|
| Page 36 of 37
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 |
|
Home
login 
