The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Seconds? Dont you lock your door? I have dogs. At night something as little as someone walking across the yard can rile them up.
No, my suggestion is the sane one where I assume an intruder in the US is armed because it's likely. The scenario is you're just being robbed, not protecting yourself. No way am I risking getting shot over a TV or computer.
If they steal my phone they've already gotten my gun. Both are on (phone) in (gun) the night stand. If it's gone that far its past just a robbery and has progressed to something worse that I would've advocated deadly force for.
You're where? Germany right? Over there it might not be likely an intruder is armed. I guess if you want to physically protect your TV you probably have a better shot at walking away without any bullet holes.
What all these fantasy cowboys who are aching for a shootout don't seem to get is that when guns are easy to get it's just as likely that the intruder is carrying too.
Yes, make sure your family is safe, call the cops and go get a new TV, etc in the morning.
Almost all of the home defense instruction is to make sure your family is safe and to call the cops. There's a certain gun nut segment that thinks that confronting intruders is the way to go, but that is not any type of consensus among the experts. But yeah, if you've ever waited for the cops to arrive, they are only good for conducting investigations. They are not any type of protective service.
Home defense has you collect your family, and then sequester yourself in a safe location in the house and wait for the cops. But if you don't have a gun, you are completely at the whim of the violence of the intruder. If they want to take your TV, you having a gun won't change anything. If they want to commit harm on your family, the gun will change everything.
That's the principle. In practice, changing the homeowner's ability to get a gun also changes the odds whether the intruders have guns. As I said, in Canada it is quite easy to use a firearm for home defense in a legal fashion. It's just the storage requirements that make it kind of a special case. A lot of things need to go right
Home defense has you collect your family, and then sequester yourself in a safe location in the house and wait for the cops. But if you don't have a gun, you are completely at the whim of the violence of the intruder. If they want to take your TV, you having a gun won't change anything. If they want to commit harm on your family, the gun will change everything.
That's the principle. In practice, changing the homeowner's ability to get a gun also changes the odds whether the intruders have guns. As I said, in Canada it is quite easy to use a firearm for home defense in a legal fashion. It's just the storage requirements that make it kind of a special case. A lot of things need to go right
It doesn't take much to kick the average door down.
Source: My experience in the Army.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Nobody's kicking in front doors to steal TVs is suburbia FFS.
And you show, yet again, a lack of education on this issue. In just my neighborhood alone (which is a typical suburban neighborhood) there have been six break-ins in the last month. In each one of those break-ins, the intruders forced their way in by either busting out a window or kicking in a locked door.
I'm sure if you read the crime blotter in your neighborhood, you'd probably see similar incidents. Remember: just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Black American shoots White American is local news. White American shoots Black American is sometimes news. Black American shoots Black American is not. news. White American gets caught stealing **** from Black American is sometimes local news. Black American gets caught stealing **** from White American is barely local news. White rich-ass 'merican feks huge swaths of society with usurious structures backed by trigger happy Tony Sopranos? Not. News.
On a high note of progress, the "white" in "rich-ass" means less than it did when I was younger. Woot. N'stuff.
Seriously. They don't even donate charitably objectively except as the richest of them skew the averages relatively. They're super useless arsewads. "The need for charitable food aid resolves every couple months." Or some similar bull, it seems to me.
On a high note of progress, the "white" in "rich-ass" means less than it did when I was younger. Woot. N'stuff.
Seriously. They don't even donate charitably objectively except as the richest of them skew the averages relatively. They're super useless arsewads. "The need for charitable food aid resolves every couple months." Or some similar bull, it seems to me.
Last edited:
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
While the home owners were home?
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Yea it doesn't happen and usually the criminals know the homeowners whether they are neighbors kids or such or family. So they know when the house is empty. This whole conversation is dumb, because the last thing we will be doing is taking guns away from homes and the defense of homes. One shouldn't look at a home invasion as an opportunity to shoot someone, but that is what happens. My real problem is taking this to your local convenience store and creating situations wherein you shoot someone like that florida man did recently.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Man, I never even advocated taking them away. I just said it's stupid to get in a shootout over a TV. Most gun control advocates just want better laws in the books that make it harder for people with records or mental health issue to get and keep them.
With the way things are right now the intruder is just as likely to be carrying and he didn't just get startled out of sleep. Sequester yourself in a room and call the cops. If they're just coming for the TV and not you its stupid to engage. Even if you do survive, stray bullets could hit the very thing you're risking your neck to protect. Or worse, a family member. Go buy a new TV in the morning.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
I agree with you.
Perhaps so. Yet home invasions, murder, robbery, assault, rape and other violence are also from the middle ages (earlier in fact) and are yet still occurring. Humanity is deeply flawed. And if my family and I are under threat, I'd like to have the option to protect.
I'd like to insert a bit of irony here. There was once a Washington Post writer by the name of William Raspberry. He was very liberal - pro civil rights, pro Gay, anti Gun, etc. He wrote a number of Gun Control editorials which included some of the arguments above and more. He appeared to have a real moral conviction against the Second Amendment.Then one day, he had a home invader. Mr. Raspberry pulled out his gun and held the scumbag until the police arrived.
Would it have turned out better if the home invader had access to cheaper and easier guns?
Fippy
Mycro Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 15,019
Not that i disagree (Glassfan), but guns are among the worst options (and their main purpose is NRA and money).
For self defense, there's martial arts (mostly for men), dogs / animals, or even unconventional but less "deadly shot" weapons.
With guns so many bad things can happen..
abuse of power, accidental shots, family members discovering them and doing something that you..let's say had not planned,
and probably more that i forget now.
For self defense, there's martial arts (mostly for men), dogs / animals, or even unconventional but less "deadly shot" weapons.
With guns so many bad things can happen..
abuse of power, accidental shots, family members discovering them and doing something that you..let's say had not planned,
and probably more that i forget now.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Let's not get too worried about gun violence. As long as you're not a gang member of committing suicide, the likelihood of being shot is extremely small. Also gun violence has dropped from the highs of the early 1990's.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Are you speaking specifically about Australia here or?
Because it sounds like one of those things people say online completely ignorant of the reality they live in.
CNN replicated that analysis and found that 39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/index.html
The 39,773 total gun deaths in 2017 were the most since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online data. This was slightly more than the 39,595 gun deaths recorded in the prior peak year of 1993. Both gun murders and gun suicides have gone up in recent years: The number of gun murders rose 32% between 2014 and 2017, while the number of gun suicides rose each year between 2006 and 2017 (a 41% increase overall).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Murdochland.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Was Mr. Raspberry actually anti gun or just for gun control? I tried to find reference of this story. That was easy. Except none of them said he was anti gun. In fact he actually served in the military. Most just said he was in favor of gun control. My money says he was not being hypocritical in his beliefs.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say someone made the common foolish assumption that a lib who supports gun control must be anti gun. Don't do that. Its strawmanning the other side.
Infraction for inappropriate content
See, what you are advocating here is people should just accept being a victim. That people should never fight back against an injustice being committed against them. The point in engaging an intruder is not to protect your TV, but to send a message that you refuse to be victimized without putting up a fight.
So yeah, someone breaks in my home, I'm shooting them dead even if they were only there to steal from me. Why? Because they had the audacity to try to victimize me and make me feel unsafe in my own home. Attempting to put someone through that kind of torment deserves death in my opinion. And yeah, even a simple break in to steal stuff can cause lasting mental trauma to the victims. A family member of mine that does various handyman projects for people told me of a woman who paid him thousands of dollars for a bunch of security upgrades to her house just because of the paranoia and fear she felt after her home was broken into. She was an older woman and her son said she had also become a complete shut-in after the incident too because she had become so afraid that she might also get mugged or something outside. All that trauma from a simple break-in. A woman's life basically ruined because some worthless piece of crap decided it was okay steal.
Moderator Action: There was a warning upthread about fantasizing about or advocating for the killing of people. This is not the place to discuss such things and has no place here. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
