Which home is safer?

I must have missed where I was against safe use of guns.....

Then you must not have been paying attention when you wrote the broad and blanket statement that "you can take my guns away".

If you had wanted to convey that you were in favor of the safe use of guns you could have said something like "you can take my guns away when used unsafely"
 
Werbung:
I am against giving government the authority to decide which guns I should and shouldn't have.

History shows that government often makes very bad (i.e. contrary to their citizens' best interests) decisions on such matters. And when they're bad, they're VERY bad - far worse than the decisions made by the citizenry themselves.
 
I thought this was an amusing quote:

'REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM'

If you saw the layout of my home, you would realize how useless a gun would be to me.
Even if I were inclined to own and use one, I would be trapped upstairs, in a cul-de-sac, with no way out, if they were also armed. They'd have every strategic advantage. All I could do is make it dangerous for them to go upstairs. They could loot the downstairs of my home with impunity, while I fumed away upstairs, helpless to prevent them from doing so, an easy open target as soon as I set foot on my steps to go downstairs.

Fortunately, that is not a problem, since forced entry and armed robbery are non-problems in my neighborhood.

Samsara, if what you say is true, that you'd be "trapped upstairs, in a cul-de-sac, with no way out", that's exactly WHY you should be armed. First of all, if you're upstairs you hold the 'high ground', which gives you a distinct advantage in a home defense situation. When someone is trapped, with their back against the wall, THAT is a very dangerous person, and a home invader knows that, so when he has a clear means of escape, 99 times out of 100 they'll take it rather than face a trapped person who is armed. Also, I've never heard of an intruder (armed or not) staying and ransacking a home with an armed homeowner upstairs, that'd just be asking to get shot.

Whether or not you choose to own a weapon is your decision, but if you're going to discuss the subject from a tactical position, it would do you well to know what you're talking about rather than merely speculating. The quickest way I know of to get an intruder to leave, in one REAL big hurry is for them to hear a shell being jacked into the chamber of a pump shotgun! That is an unmistakable sound, and it will send them flying out the door like their heads were on fire, and their ass's catching!
 
Then you must not have been paying attention when you wrote the broad and blanket statement that "you can take my guns away".

If you had wanted to convey that you were in favor of the safe use of guns you could have said something like "you can take my guns away when used unsafely"

1 I dont have guns to take away

2. if the goverment needs to be overthrown, the military will have to do it, becuse I can fight all I want, they will win. No assult rifles are going to protect anyone from the evil goverment. if they wanted to , your dead, sorry but even your AR-15 is not going to help you last long.

I felt that my long time of stateing I am not for banning assult rifles and all that would be enough that I dont have to spell it out evry time I point out a fact that some gun nut is making a retarded point...as they often do
 
1 I dont have guns to take away

2. if the goverment needs to be overthrown, the military will have to do it, becuse I can fight all I want, they will win. No assult rifles are going to protect anyone from the evil goverment. if they wanted to , your dead, sorry but even your AR-15 is not going to help you last long.

I felt that my long time of stateing I am not for banning assult rifles and all that would be enough that I dont have to spell it out evry time I point out a fact that some gun nut is making a retarded point...as they often do

Hey I am not saying you have to spell it out every time. But making statements like "you can take my guns away" on a thread like this is the opposite of of just not spelling it out. That is asking to be misinterpreted.

When every argument you make is in favor of taking guns away yet you say that you are not in favor of taking guns away we have to ask ourselves why are you always making such one-sided arguments.
 
American is a violent nation. one of the most violent Western nations.

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#america

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation.

The problem with "Agenda" groups and their stats is that 1) they're usually very wrong, and 2) they never tell the whole story.

For starters, the 80 a day figure is totally bogus. The actual number for 2005 (according to the FBI) is actually 29 per day, and well over half of those were suicides, not homicides.

As for your claims about American children being more at risk from firearms than anywhere else is also a very misleading and subjective statement. You failed to qualify exactly what you consider to be an "industrialized nation", and you failed to qualify exactly what you consider "children" to be. Many African nations are "industrialized", yet far more children die from firearms related injuries than all firearms related deaths in the US.

According to the CDC, for 2006 there were a total of 642 fatalities due to the accidental discharge of a firearm, and of that number 54 were of children under the age of 14. Due to CDC data collection techniques (they include 15-24 year olds in the same age group) it is impossible to determine exactly how many 15 to 18 year olds were killed by the accidental dischage of a firearm, yet using simple mathematics, of the 193 accidental firearms related fatalities among 15-24 year olds and assuming 19.3 for each of the 10 ages represented, that gives us a total of 131 'children' (those 18 years of age or younger) killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm. Conversely, 6 times as many, specifically 781 children (those 18 years of age and under) died from drowning, and I don't hear anyone calling for banning swimming pools, and nearly 6,500 died in automobile collisions but I don't hear anyone calling for cars to be outlawed.

If we then consider intentional homicides of children (those under 18 years of age) where a firearm was used, we find 1,733 fatalities. As horrific as that number is, it must be pointed out that in the age group up to 14 years of age, only 285 homicides, which supports the FBI's data that the majority of juvenile firearms related fatalities are drug and/or gang related, and in the overwhelming majority of incidents the firearm used was stolen or otherwise illegally possessed. It is also prudent to point out that in the group up to 14 years of age, homicide by means other than firearm accounted for 807 fatalities, or more than 3 times as many deaths as by firearms.

Anyway, all of that to say that once one looks at the REAL data, it renders the entire argument about firearms related deaths among children as a reason to ban or control firearms to be intellectually bankrupt because there are a whole lot of factors that are responsible for a whole lot more deaths among children, and everyone else for that matter, than firearms!
 
I lean towards Acorns side in this matter, we should all be allowed to own guns, I just don't see the need for an SKS to kill a squirrel. Does anyone really believe there is a need for the average citizen to own an assault rifle? I can do just as much damage with my Glock, my Taurus, and my Mossberg.

The last time I checked, the founders didn't write the First Amendment to protect hunting. As far as the canard about an "assault rifle", the Brown Bess musket of the Revolution was the "assault rifle" of the day. The M1903 Springfield Rifle was the "assault rifle" of it's day. The M1 Garand was the "assault rifle" of it's day. The M-14 was the "assault rifle" of it's day, and today the M-16/M-4/AR-15 is the "assault rifle". Any weapon that is used during the assault phase of military operations is by definition an "assault rifle", and given that every American is subject to be called upon to defend America should the need arise demands that EVERY American should not only own an "assault rifle", but they should be proficient in it's use.
 
The last time I checked, the founders didn't write the First Amendment to protect hunting. As far as the canard about an "assault rifle", the Brown Bess musket of the Revolution was the "assault rifle" of the day. The M1903 Springfield Rifle was the "assault rifle" of it's day. The M1 Garand was the "assault rifle" of it's day. The M-14 was the "assault rifle" of it's day, and today the M-16/M-4/AR-15 is the "assault rifle". Any weapon that is used during the assault phase of military operations is by definition an "assault rifle", and given that every American is subject to be called upon to defend America should the need arise demands that EVERY American should not only own an "assault rifle", but they should be proficient in it's use.

The problem with that train of thought is that you're stuck in one time periods technology trying to extrapolate it out to any future time.

Such could not be the case because of the awesome and completely unforeseeable quick mass killing power arrived at as military weaponry evolves.

A single shot load & pack musket could kill but not on the scale of a machine gun. There is a huge difference.

At some point our military will probably be packing Fazers that can wipe out a whole city bus full of people with one little tiny zap.

If you think the Founding fathers ever envisioned that or had that in mind when they said anyone (actually a well regulated militia) can own a cap & ball musket you'd be mistaken.
 
so show me, show where it says that people with guns in the house, are less likey to be killed or injured by a gun then those who dont.

Try again pocket, you're the one that claimed to have "stats" that validated your claim, and I called you on it, so let's see your "stats". Once we've seen yours, I'll be MORE than happy to bring mine in for comparison.
 
If you think the Founding fathers ever envisioned that or had that in mind when they said anyone (actually a well regulated militia) can own a cap & ball musket you'd be mistaken. [/COLOR]
They would have wanted us to have the same weapons and equipment that is available to our military.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Jefferson
 
The problem with that train of thought is that you're stuck in one time periods technology trying to extrapolate it out to any future time.

Such could not be the case because of the awesome and completely unforeseeable quick mass killing power arrived at as military weaponry evolves.

A single shot load & pack musket could kill but not on the scale of a machine gun. There is a huge difference.

At some point our military will probably be packing Fazers that can wipe out a whole city bus full of people with one little tiny zap.

If you think the Founding fathers ever envisioned that or had that in mind when they said anyone (actually a well regulated militia) can own a cap & ball musket you'd be mistaken.

And the problem with your comparison is that when the founders wrote the Second Amendment, it wasn't a single Brown Bess, it was a formation of thousands of troops, ALL of whom had Brown Bess muskets, and who fired them all at the same time. That's also not counting the cannons and cavalry!

You also forget to account for the fact that if everyone has "assault rifles"/"machine guns" then it's a statistical wash, the only difference is that instead of a battle lasting hours or days, it's over in a matter of minutes. Oh, and BTW, just so you'll know, a "machine gun" is, by definition, a crew served, belt fed, fully automatic weapon, and they generally weigh in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 pounds in the case of the M-60/M-240/M-249 and all the way up to 130 pounds for the M-2 BMG with tripod, so NOBODY is just walking down the streets carrying a machine gun.

Now to the "well regulated militia", you are aware aren't you that each and every able bodied man in the country is a part of that "well regulated militia", and as such is duty bound to own and be proficient with the same weapons that are used by the regular military because by law, any of us can be called up at any time at the discretion of the President and/or the Governor of your State. Why do you think that every male in the country is required to register for the draft by their 18th birthday? So that the government will know how to get in touch with you if you're needed. That's one of the main reasons for having a "well regulated militia", so that We The People will be able to defend ourselves, as well as our country, and as the Militia Act of 1798 clearly demonstrates, they fully intended that every man was to have the exact same weapons as the regular military, and to be just as proficient with them, which in this day and age means M-9/M-1911 pistol, M-16/M-4 "assault rifle", M-203 Grenade launcher, M-60/M-249/M-240 machine gun, M-1 60mm mortar, AT-4 rocket launcher, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and as for your "Fazers", why would they need that when they've already got TOW missiles and AT-4's that'll do the same thing.
 
Hey I am not saying you have to spell it out every time. But making statements like "you can take my guns away" on a thread like this is the opposite of of just not spelling it out. That is asking to be misinterpreted.

When every argument you make is in favor of taking guns away yet you say that you are not in favor of taking guns away we have to ask ourselves why are you always making such one-sided arguments.

becuse gun nuts make to many dumb statements,
 
Werbung:
They would have wanted us to have the same weapons and equipment that is available to our military.

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Jefferson

news flash, the goverment does not fear you , even if you are armed with machine guns...they still outgun you 1000000 times over....
 
Back
Top