Which home is safer?

[dahermit]

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

They were not a problem in my rural area either, until it happened to us.

 

[dahermit]

You make an interesting point. Also another issue that is very devastating when it comes to the unintended consequences of an armed society and that is the rate of suicide by firearm.
QUOTE]Aside from the fact that I consider suicide and absolute human right, I would rather that a person use a gun to commite suicide than to hit me head on while commiting suicide with their car.

Aside from that, lack of a gun for the purpose cannot be proven to lessen suicide rates. Any intelligent person can come up with a better/alternative method than a gun. Of all the people I have known to have died from suicide, none used a gun. Carbon Monoxide, hanging, cyanide (he had access), drowning, hitting tree with car.

 

[dahermit]

With or without a gun, we would be safe in our cul-de-sac, because they would also be afraid to enter it if they knew someone was awake in it, since they would be a sitting duck if they entered it. Nonetheless, we could not leave it. We could shut the door and slide heavy furniture against it, without a gun, and they couldn't get in, and the poliice would have plenty of time to arrive before they even made the effort. Once again, however, forcing entry into our front doors or windows would be a loud, time-consuming, major effort and would required professional tools. If we had a burlar alarm, imagine the noise it would make.

Too bad we poor folk do not have the money for reinforced doors and windows. When our house was broken in to, they just kick the back door in.

 

[Dr.Who]

of course far more common is the kid getting the gun on accident and shooting someone, or someone getting drunk and useing it...but they never push that though.

That is why there are laws about gun safes. to keep people who are too stupid to handle a gun from handling them.

 

[Dr.Who]

There seems to be some interesting conversations going on.

A question for Samsara...why should "assault weapons" banned? and what do you define as an assault weapon?

Question for anyone...Who should be able to carry a concealed handgun in public?

Oh Oh Mr. Kotter pick me.

1) Assault weapons should be banned because it would make groups of citizens as well armed as the military. Oh wait, that as the intent of the constitution.

2) People who obey the law.

 

[samsara15]

I'm not sure I can define an assulat weapon, Bunz. I thought there was a commonly agreed definition of them. I don't know much about guns and weaponry, nor do I care to learn, either, something I am sure people will attack. Does it reduce violence in our society to have people walking around with machine guns and flame throwers, that they can buy at the local supermarket? Let it be noted that people are quite often killed with iron pipes and tire irons, but it is hard to kill 20 or 30 people with a tire iron.

 

[samsara15]

Dr Who: Most mass murderers have never previously commited a crime. 'We never thought such a sweet boy could do such a thing', so people usually say after some kid kills 15-20 peope on a college campus.

 

[MichaelB]

Owning a gun is a right (at least still for now) and personal decision .... I have lived around guns all my life and my family (and myself) have never had to use our guns in a self defense situation ... but help the poor guy who decides to come into my home not invited ... my life and my families life are very valuable to me and I will do what it takes to provide a defense to protect all .... I just don't want to take the chance that the guy who has just broken into my home is there to JUST rob me ... there are just too many out there who are using guns during a burglary ...

 

[dahermit]

I'm not sure I can define an assulat weapon, Bunz. I thought there was a commonly agreed definition of them. I don't know much about guns and weaponry, nor do I care to learn, either, something I am sure people will attack. Does it reduce violence in our society to have people walking around with machine guns and flame throwers, that they can buy at the local supermarket? Let it be noted that people are quite often killed with iron pipes and tire irons, but it is hard to kill 20 or 30 people with a tire iron.

This is anti-gun demagoguery. Just where in hell can a person buy "machine guns" and "flame throwers" in supermarkets in our country?

...I don't know much about guns and weaponry, nor do I care to learn,..

Then is it not prudent that you should withhold your opinion on the subject? I do not know much about brain surgery, nor do I care to learn...therefore, I keep my mouth shut should the subject come up.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr Who: Most mass murderers have never previously commited a crime. 'We never thought such a sweet boy could do such a thing', so people usually say after some kid kills 15-20 peope on a college campus.

All true, but the basis of law is that we don't take away the rights of people who have not yet committed a crime.

We do set some limits on those rights and not having machine guns for sale on the corner might be a good idea. That or make sure that enough people have other guns to stop the mass murderer (which has happened on several occasions and rarely makes the news). How are the American people supposed to make informed decisions if the msm only prints the news that is anti gun?

But then we have to address the fact that the right to own guns was intended to be a check by the American people on the government that had the military might.

An awful lot of people ran around the last 8 years saying that Bush was a dictator who was engaged in illegal use of the military. How do they propose to stop him if he sends the Marines into Chicago?

 

[samsara15]

This is anti-gun demagoguery. Just where in hell can a person buy "machine guns" and "flame throwers" in supermarkets in our country?

Then is it not prudent that you should withhold your opinion on the subject? I do not know much about brain surgery, nor do I care to learn...therefore, I keep my mouth shut should the subject come up.

The initial post that began this thread was Pro-Gun demagoguery, hermit.

Shouldn't we all keep silent on the subject of Global Warming, if discussion is to be limited to experts?

The threat of armed home robbery exists for all, even if the odds of it happening to us are low, which they are; therefore we all have to make a decision and make a choice, right or wrong, expert or not.

 

[samsara15]

All true, but the basis of law is that we don't take away the rights of people who have not yet committed a crime.

We do set some limits on those rights and not having machine guns for sale on the corner might be a good idea. That or make sure that enough people have other guns to stop the mass murderer (which has happened on several occasions and rarely makes the news). How are the American people supposed to make informed decisions if the msm only prints the news that is anti gun?

But then we have to address the fact that the right to own guns was intended to be a check by the American people on the government that had the military might.

An awful lot of people ran around the last 8 years saying that Bush was a dictator who was engaged in illegal use of the military. How do they propose to stop him if he sends the Marines into Chicago?

How many para-military factions do you want operating in the US at the same time? We could have some interesting civil wars, between many competing factions, couldn't we? LOL!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

All true, but the basis of law is that we don't take away the rights of people who have not yet committed a crime.

We do set some limits on those rights and not having machine guns for sale on the corner might be a good idea. That or make sure that enough people have other guns to stop the mass murderer (which has happened on several occasions and rarely makes the news). How are the American people supposed to make informed decisions if the msm only prints the news that is anti gun?

But then we have to address the fact that the right to own guns was intended to be a check by the American people on the government that had the military might.

An awful lot of people ran around the last 8 years saying that Bush was a dictator who was engaged in illegal use of the military. How do they propose to stop him if he sends the Marines into Chicago?

just so you know, if Bush sent the Marines in to Chicago...you can have all the rifles handguns, shotguns, and guns most people have, hell grab the semi autos and some full autos even...and guess when you don't have a Fing chance against the Military if they really wanted to do it. Unless you think pretty poorly of our military....

 

[Little-Acorn]

the Military if they really wanted to do it.

Yep, that's the deciding factor.

If the Marines were sent to kill large numbers of the U.S. civilian population and destroy their property, and those Marines knew that the reason they were doing so was because those govt didn't like those civilians owning guns and had decided that was the proper response... How many would walk up to this homeowner or that housewife etc. and pull the trigger?

 

[laughinatreps]

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.