Guns

[Im_A]

Really, you think?

It still doesn't convince me one needs a gun. Technology is a wonderful thing - a home security system can scare an intruder away, as well as get the cops to your door in a swift manner.



Yeah; I don't understand how anyone can get any joy at shooting at another human being - even if that person is an intruder.



And who's to say you're going to actually wake up quickly enough, register your surroundings quickly enough, and get your hand under your pillow quickly enough to shoot at the intruder before they attack you?



Disagree. I guess my parents did a crappy job of raising me by your litmus test of being a good parent, then.

Anywho, I've said my piece. Being told I'm at risk of being attacked is not going to convince me to get a gun, and it sure as heck won't convince me to marry a Skilled Marksman. Like darts, shooting at a target requires very little physical exertion - ergo, it is not a sport; merely a past-time, and by extension, the argument that one needs a gun for sport is null and void IMO.

There's much better things one can do with their time than shoot at a target or hunt game*. If life is so sacred that we need to protect our own and that of our minor children, why is it okay to shoot and kill innocent animals? They did nothing to hurt you; therefore, they should not be shot at for fun or for decor. If you are decorating your house with antlers, I suggest you drop the Gaston look and hire Nate Brekus - for you are not just practising animal cruelty, but also guilty of bad taste.



*hunting for meat, or farming livestock is a different situation to hunting game 'for fun.' It would be nice if the entire world was vegan or vegetarian, but it isn't realistic.

Oh my dear, you have to realize who the real enemy is:

 

[Blackguard_]

It still doesn't convince me one needs a gun. Technology is a wonderful thing - a home security system can scare an intruder away, as well as get the cops to your door in a swift manner.

Hopefully it will, and police response times are glacially slow considering the situation.

Technology is a wonderful thing. Alarm and firearms technology make for a great combination. The alarm to warn you and and hopefully spook the intruder, and the firearm for if they aren't spooked. Alarm systems aren't magic charms or foolproof either.

Also, people leave their houses. Alarm systems won't help much out there.

I think it foolish to limit yourself just to means that rely on the attacker/intruder/whatever voluntarily stopping the attack, such as alarms and less-lethal weapons, for personal/home defense.

Yeah; I don't understand how anyone can get any joy at shooting at another human being - even if that person is an intruder.

I agree,(after all, you're supposed to be in fear of you or someone else being killed or something at the time) but I was saying you shouldn't have a gun if you aren't willing to shoot it in self defense.

And who's to say you're going to actually wake up quickly enough, register your surroundings quickly enough, and get your hand under your pillow quickly enough to shoot at the intruder before they attack you?

Nobody, maybe you won't. Who's to say you won't be able to get to a gun in time? Like I said people have needed to use their pillow guns. Although again like I said I'd put the gun somewhere else. And this is also why alarms or dogs are good, so you are better able to get to your gun.

The anti-gun movement trades on fantasy scenarios, from "you can;t draw on a robber" to "blood will flow in the streets if we legalize carry". You act like it's amazing someone could "actually" get to a gun in time to shoot an intruder when there is no shortage of example of people doing just that and many other things that should be impossible according to the anti-gunners and their fantasies.

Disagree. I guess my parents did a crappy job of raising me by your litmus test of being a good parent, then.

Your litmus test. If we're going to make gun ownership a litmus test of parental responsibility, I'd just have gone the other way as you.

I guess my parents did a crappy job of raising me by your litmus test.

Like darts, shooting at a target requires very little physical exertion - ergo, it is not a sport; merely a past-time, and by extension, the argument that one needs a gun for sport is null and void IMO.

Is there some right to sports but not a right to pastimes, hobbies, and games?

Of course, you won't see me making the argument gun rights are based on "sporting purposes".

 

[Sketcher]

A gun can easily be turned against you should an intruder break in; I would not feel any safer with a gun in my house than without.

It COULD be turned against you IF you are not trained in using it and you don't store it properly. If you do both of those things, the advantage goes to you, because you know the inside of your house in the dark, and the intruder usually will not.

There is no need to sleep with a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson revolver under your pillow. And dare I say it, any parent who has a gun in the house with their children (even locked up) is being an irresponsible parent.

I agree with you on personal storage. No way would I feel comfortable storing a gun, especially a loaded one, under my pillow especially with kids in the house. But I don't believe in laws against storing it foolishly like that. They're unenforceable, intrusive, and if something were to happen, only add insult to injury after the fact. People should be aware that they can lose their children if they store their weapons that way, and that should be a sufficient deterrent to storing them in that manner. If they learn the hard way, then it's their loss most of all.

However, it is NOT irresponsible to have a gun in the house properly stored, any more than it would be irresponsible to have matches in the house properly stored.

Yeah; I don't understand how anyone can get any joy at shooting at another human being - even if that person is an intruder.

If the emotion is joy, then there's something wrong with the person. It's more like avoiding the anguish of knowing that an intruder came into your house, did unspeakable things to your family, and you could have done something about it if you had a gun loaded and ready to use.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I have to side with the gun crowd on one thing, anyway. The idea that the police will respond in time is a fantasy. Consider: Your house alarm has sounded. That means that the bad guy is already outside attempting to get in if he isn't already in. That gives him the edge on time. The police still have to get there, figure a minimum of five minutes, if you're in town. If you're out of town, better figure a good deal longer than that. Five minutes is an eternity when a bad guy is doing terrible things in and about your home.

I have to say one other thing. If you live in a neighborhood where bad guys break into your house on a regular basis, then your neighborhood is just too nasty and you really should consider moving. The idea that you would need military-style weapons for home defense would be an indicator that the movers should be called at once.

 

[Aino]

You're making a huge assumption those people would be paranoid about you.

It's the anti-gun people that are paranoid of their neighbors, not the pro-gun people.

Well excuse me, but I just fail to understand why someone would carry a gun if they weren't afraid that someone would eventually attack them.

But never mind, you keep as many guns as you want to and do whatever you want to with them...

 

[armyman_83]

Police Response Times Average, major city study. About 10 minutes.

Response times- city to city

About 10 minutes.

A Glock 17 pistol can fire, at a sustained rate, 40 rounds a minute. That means, about 400 rounds could be fired in the time it took police(on average) to get to your home. Or who do you want responding in an "Active shooter" situation. Pulling a trigger takes only seconds, Cops arrive in minutes. Where life matters, seconds matter.

 

[Gym]

As someone in law enforcement.. seriously if you think an alarm system alone is going to deter an intruder- you're living in a fantasy world.
Additionally- I've seen evil.. true evil and yes I fee lI need to be protected from it.
As someone who has been shot at... and also someone who has been hit twice- by a gun: yes I feel Guns should be available. Had I been able to have a gun at the time I was being shot at one of those times; I might have been able to stop the guy from shooting at all. The two times I was hit were unpreventable.. but not the time I wasn't hit.
Further, as someone who has had a loved one's house broken into and the intruder detered by only a gun. Yes I believe guns are necessary. Said intruder would not be detered by the simple alarm system by the way.
-Backtracking to the being shot at part.. yes I believe restrictions should be in place. Hoepfully that would have prevented my being shot at in that particular instance.

If you think for a moment that I'm going to disregard ALL of the above that has proven to me in life firearms are necessary... don't waste your time.

 

[MacFall]

Well excuse me, but I just fail to understand why someone would carry a gun if they weren't afraid that someone would eventually attack them.

Preparation is not an indication of fear.

Do you wear your seatbelt because you don't trust the driving ability of your neighbors, or do you wear your seat belt just in case you are in a collision? If it's the former, then you need to trust other people more. If the latter, then realize that gun owners largely treat guns the same way people treat seat belts: because it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. And really, very few people want to have to use a gun against another person at all, much less in self-defense. Those that do are the sort of people we call "criminals".

And in the meantime, it's fun to put holes in inanimate objects from great distances.

 

[Luther073082]

First off AR-15's are a common platform for hunting with all their multiply caliber configurations.

Second without having a Class III license one can not own a assault rifle. "An assault rifle is defined as a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine" per Wikipedia. Selective fire means you can choose between semi-auto and three round burst or full auto.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle unless it has the pieces to make it shoot more then one bullet per trigger pull.

An AR-15 is no different from a Ruger 10-22, Remington 700 series rifle, or any other rifle that has a magazine.

I wasn't talking about an AR-15, I was exclusivly if you read my first post talking about fully automatic weapons.

Well excuse me, but I just fail to understand why someone would carry a gun if they weren't afraid that someone would eventually attack them.

Mostly because you never know. I personally don't carry a firearm because I don't feel the need. But if someone starts trying to stalk my family or we feel threatened I want to be able to get a gun.

If someone is stalking you, the only thing you can get (that is when you have proof of the stalking) is a restraining order which is just a court order telling them to stay away from you. But there is very little teeth to that and they can only punish that person if they violate that court order.

Problem is when they decide to violate that court order they may just be in the process of killing you at the same time.

The thing about gun control no one talks about is that for the most part, the people who legally own weapons almost never commit crimes with them. The weapons which are used in crimes are almost always obtained through illegal means.

 

[Sketcher]

Mostly because you never know. I personally don't carry a firearm because I don't feel the need. But if someone starts trying to stalk my family or we feel threatened I want to be able to get a gun.

Between the mandatory waiting periods and the time needed to practice so you can get proficient with it, it's best not to wait until then.

 

[Blackguard_]

Well excuse me, but I just fail to understand why someone would carry a gun if they weren't afraid that someone would eventually attack them.

I fail to understand why you wouldn't want anybody to carry a gun if you weren't afraid that anybody might eventually attack you.

I suppose it's hard for an anti-gunner to understand the mentality of a gun carrier, seeing as they are paranoid of everybody which is why they want nobody to have guns in the first place.

This is why despite what anti-gunners like to think, theirs is the side of fear and paranoia. Pro-gun people are not paranoid of everybody.

Pro and anti-gun people seem to base their views on gun control on very different views of humanity. Pro-gun people are more trusting and less fearful of people, as they are OK with their neighbors having guns, knowing that it's the rare criminal types they have to worry about and not everybody.

 

[Blackguard_]

The thing about gun control no one talks about is that for the most part, the people who legally own weapons almost never commit crimes with them. The weapons which are used in crimes are almost always obtained through illegal means.

To add to that, the reason those guns are illegal is not just because they are stolen or something, but because they are probably being used by a convicted criminal who can't legally have a gun in the first place.

But that doesn't jive with the anti-gunner's paranoia and fear of the common person. They seem to think people just one day up and decide to knock over a liquor store or something, and not that they most likely already had a long criminal history behind them.

 

[Tehchad]

I think that citizens, not nec immigrants until they are naturalized, have a right to own a firearm. 18/21 whatever. Once you hit 21, you have the right to own them.
Licensing and registration brings a lot of thick bureaucracy to a simple right. I don't mind background checks for public vendors and I think they are good. I like the private party sales as most states have them - look the person in the eye, bill of sale to protect the seller if needed, etc.

On a more general level, I think that the laws in this country have become WAY too much. If someone feels that they are a victim, they scream and whine until a new law is passed when they should have just watched their butt to begin with.

Back to arms for a second. Recently, I ran into an old friend of mine that just had a baby. We chatted, small talk for a minute. She stopped and remarked at how big her daughter is getting (she is about 19mo now). I laughed emphatically and said, "You know! Boys will be calling soon!" She replied "Oh man! Don't say that." She had just bought a shotgun for home defense. haha! I think that everyone should be ready and willing to protect their home, and not just for their daughters/sons.

I think most of us here work towards the Goal - building life, relationships, friends, and of course family. As I have bits and pieces of the above, I'm doing my best to be ready for the unthinkable.

My $0.02

 

[MacFall]

I think that citizens, not nec immigrants until they are naturalized, have a right to own a firearm. 18/21 whatever. Once you hit 21, you have the right to own them.

If it is limited to citizens, then it is a privilege, not a right. If it is a right then everyone, no matter on which landmass they are or come from, is born with it. As soon as a person becomes an adult (which is the time at which they begin to take responsibility for their own actions, thereby demonstrating they have grown into their rational capacities, and is not an arbitrary number like 18 or 21) they have the right to keep and bear arms as a part of their right to preserve their own lives, no matter what the law says.

 

[TheTrash]

Preparation is not an indication of fear.

Do you wear your seatbelt because you don't trust the driving ability of your neighbors, or do you wear your seat belt just in case you are in a collision? If it's the former, then you need to trust other people more. If the latter, then realize that gun owners largely treat guns the same way people treat seat belts: because it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. And really, very few people want to have to use a gun against another person at all, much less in self-defense. Those that do are the sort of people we call "criminals".

And in the meantime, it's fun to put holes in inanimate objects from great distances.

No, it's largely because I'd like to avoid fines and demerit (sp? I'm sure Blackguard_ can passive-aggresively correct that for me...) points.

 

[Tehchad]

If it is limited to citizens, then it is a privilege, not a right. If it is a right then everyone, no matter on which landmass they are or come from, is born with it. As soon as a person becomes an adult (which is the time at which they begin to take responsibility for their own actions, thereby demonstrating they have grown into their rational capacities, and is not an arbitrary number like 18 or 21) they have the right to keep and bear arms as a part of their right to preserve their own lives, no matter what the law says.

You're right. I'm wrong. Once again.

 

[MacFall]

@Trash: Ok, so the metaphor is flawed (they all are). But the point still stands: gun owners tend to trust others to keep and bear arms safely and with respect to the rights of others. Anti-gunners don't trust anyone with guns at all (except maybe for the police, who are statistically more likely to harm them than a private gun owner).

So who is paranoid?

 

[TheTrash]

@Trash: Ok, so the metaphor is flawed (they all are). But the point still stands: gun owners tend to trust others to keep and bear arms safely and with respect to the rights of others. Anti-gunners don't trust anyone with guns at all (except maybe for the police, who are statistically more likely to harm them than a private gun owner).

So who is paranoid?

I know this may seem mind-boggling, but I have yet to have a cop pull a gun on me; perhaps because I'm generally following the law; within reason, of course.

I don't think it's about being paranoid, I think it's about being realistic. I do not need a gun even as a female in a city. You don't go out at 2 in the morning alone if you can help it, and if you do, you don't do it on the metro and take a cab. If you have to take the metro (which I have) you stay near other people (preferably women) on the platform. In all these instances, I have to yet to feel the need to carry a pearl-handled Smith & Wesson revolver around in my handbag. There is always another option - IMHO - to carrying round a firearm.

 

[Deacon]

You know TheTrash....I have a few pictures for you

 

[TheTrash]

You know TheTrash....I have a few pictures for you

Thank you for not reading my post. You must've missed the points where I noted...

1) I would not go out alone at night.
2) I generally would not be taking the metro late at night. Alone.
3) I would take a cab from my destination to the house before I took the metro from somewhere downtown to my home.

So, that throws a bit of a wrench in your 'theory' that I'm walking down a dark alley, late at night, all lacksy-daisy with my head in the clouds? Again, there are safety precautions one can set up - along with not getting drunk - rather than carrying a firearm.

Furthermore, as for the condom vs. the gun, Dr. Alex Comfort - who had more knowledge on human sexuality than I presume you do - in The Joy of Sex mentions that if a woman urinates, often times, it can 'kill' the mood for the attacker. Deity willing, I'm never and none of the women here are in that situation, but you still cannot convince me a gun is the only way to stay safe as a woman.

But thank you for the edumacation.