The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Ciabhán]

The possibility of being attacked by a mutant land-shark is there, it doesn't mean that going to buy a harpoon gun for self defense is a good idea. You can justify owning anything if you are going to toss what if scenarios all around?

At what point does the possibility of something happening justify being prepared for it? Or do you not own a smoke detector, fire extinguisher, seat belts, health insurance, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, maybe a generator, etc? Seeing as you are not a paranoid lunatic you must not need any of those.

[Gelgoog]

Well, that's complete bollocks. We're talking about home invasion and nobody suggested people to aim for the arms or legs only. Wanting to kill an intruder partly because he might sue you is just wrong.

You essentially said it is wrong to kill someone breaking into your house when all they want is your stuff. You can play nice with the criminal breaking into your house high on crack, I will shoot him. If he survives he can explain his intentions to the police. My "give a " meter does not work from people who break into my home.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Right, you're free to make stuff up of course. It's pathetic to do so though.

Cool, believe blindly in the brady campaign on their censored FB page. IF they had nothing to hide then they would not delete ever post that goes against their message.

I despair of this attitude, I really do. No doubt your one of those "Murrika; death to the evil terrorists" guys?

No I am one of those "Murrika, if you don't live here then I could give two s about you"

You sound like you've never even been in a bloody fight before. Don't dare try and ridicule me for my perspective. I don't need a damn assault rifle to defend my home against an invader. A quick kick to the groin is all that's needed ffs..... failing that, there's a bat I keep upstairs in case I really need it. There is no call for a much more brutal weapon.

I've been in more then enough fights....with hardened criminals no less. You know the kind that involves Sabre Red and handcuffs. Tell me when was the last time you have to wrestle someone much larger then yourself to the ground while being nearly blinded from secondary exposure to OC spray?

No doubt you think that a burglar deserves a nice shotgun blast to the face. How civilised of you.

Don't wanna get shot, don't go breaking into homes. Actions have consequences.

Look at the crime mortality rate (as already discussed with Surgeon) here when compared to the USA (as a percentage). Case closed.

Spuriousness....anyone ......anyone.

I can tell your very myopic; no point trying to make you see reason. Therefore I'm ending this discussion, before you really start to piss me off with your mocking attitude. Enjoy your "freedom".

I will be waiting when you have an argument supported by more then opinions.

[The Hedge Knight]

You essentially said it is wrong to kill someone breaking into your house when all they want is your stuff.

Thats because it I and should be in the mind of any rational human. Its totally disproportionate. If your so worried about losing your valuables buy a safe...

[PointOfViewGun]

You essentially said it is wrong to kill someone breaking into your house when all they want is your stuff. You can play nice with the criminal breaking into your house high on crack, I will shoot him. If he survives he can explain his intentions to the police. My "give a " meter does not work from people who break into my home.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You really gotta stop using straw man arguments. They don't get better the more you use them. You may kill an intruder if the circumstances result in that way, however, killing the intruder shouldn't be your primary goal.

Cool, believe blindly in the brady campaign on their censored FB page. IF they had nothing to hide then they would not delete ever post that goes against their message.

Which they didn't. Don't make stuff up.

[Gelgoog]

Thats because it I and should be in the mind of any rational human. Its totally disproportionate. If your so worried about losing your valuables buy a safe...

Have a safe, they do not stop criminals. Any home safe can be busted into in 15 minutes or less.

You break into my castle, and I can only assume that your motives are hostile and my life is in danger. Therefore I will use maximum force until there is no longer a threat (if he flees then good for him, if he stays then its game on). In my line of work I do not have the luxury of guessing that he is only here to steal . Guess what, even guys locked up can figure out where you live fairly easily (and I am unlisted).

You really gotta stop using straw man arguments.

Did somebody just learn a new word? Straw man, ok kids lets spell it out.

They don't get better the more you use them. You may kill an intruder if the circumstances result in that way, however, killing the intruder shouldn't be your primary goal.

Cool, guess we will never know.

[Ciabhán]

Thats because it I and should be in the mind of any rational human. Its totally disproportionate. If your so worried about losing your valuables buy a safe...

The valuables I worry about are 3 and 5 years old. Seeing as I'm unable to read minds if anyone enters my home illegally and they don't instantly run away when confronted I will do everything in my power to make sure he/they are not a threat. If he/they happen to die during that process it's their fault not mine. As long as my children are safe I couldn't care less.

I might even feel a tiny bit bad about it later but it wouldn't be more than a momentary twinge. I've done enough things to feel bad about I've long since learned how to move on.

[Simon Cashmere]

I wonder when pro-gun people will past beyond using straw man arguments.

I think you need to look up what straw man means. If this lady had her gun taken from her, she would may be dead, or raped and bashed, and perhaps the kids too. That's what gun control means - defenceless law abiding citizens. The fantasy that the cops are going to be there in a hot minute is just that.

There are loads of cases where women and even children have defended themselves lawfully with firearms. The alternative is for these people to be defenceless and to die in the name of gun control. That's not a straw man, that's reality. If someone breaks into your house they should just have forfeited their right to life.

And some other person in this thread saying that they would just kick someone in the groin - OMG. I've seen offenders through plexiglass that would tear your leg off and beat you to death with it. One guy in particular 'allegedly' pulled a cuthroat razor on a businesman and said give us your wallet. Businessman complied, so he 'allegedly' slashed up his face anyway. Now unleash him into your home and you can pull your best groin kicking trick, my money's on him.

[PointOfViewGun]

Did somebody just learn a new word? Straw man, ok kids lets spell it out.

Cool, guess we will never know

Childish comments don't work either. Answer these questions:

Will you stop using straw man arguments?
Will you admit that your main goal is not to scare away an intruder but to kill him? Or will you tell me that I'm wrong and that you should only use necessary force to maintain your safety? I'd much prefer the second one.

And lastly, will I get straight answers for these questions?

I think you need to look up what straw man means. If this lady had her gun taken from her, she would may be dead, or raped and bashed, and perhaps the kids too. That's what gun control means - defenceless law abiding citizens. The fantasy that the cops are going to be there in a hot minute is just that.

There are loads of cases where women and even children have defended themselves lawfully with firearms. The alternative is for these people to be defenceless and to die in the name of gun control. That's not a straw man, that's reality. If someone breaks into your house they should just have forfeited their right to life.

And some other person in this thread saying that they would just kick someone in the groin - OMG. I've seen offenders through plexiglass that would tear your leg off and beat you to death with it. One guy in particular 'allegedly' pulled a cuthroat razor on a businesman and said give us your wallet. Businessman complied, so he 'allegedly' slashed up his face anyway. Now unleash him into your home and you can pull your best groin kicking trick, my money's on him.

Don't tell me to look up what a straw man means and then repeat your straw man. Nobody suggested removing her gun. We did, however, talked about excessive shooting and intent to scare away or kill. It's really getting boring to see people trying to push the argument to the extreme to argue against. You're merely polluting the well.

[Gelgoog]

The valuables I worry about are 3 and 5 years old. Seeing as I'm unable to read minds if anyone enters my home illegally and don't instantly run away when confronted I will do everything in my power to make sure he/they are not a threat. If he/they happen to die during that process it's their fault not mine. As long as my children are safe I couldn't care less.

I might even feel a tiny bit bad about it later but it wouldn't be more than a momentary twinge. I've done enough things to feel bad about I've long since learned how to move on.

Will you admit that your main goal is not to scare away an intruder but to kill him?

I would rather not have to kill someone, because then I have to hire an attorney, have my firearm held as evidence and clean up all the blood on my hard wood floors. Do you know how difficult it is to get blood stains off wood or persian rugs?

Or will you tell me that I'm wrong and that you should only use necessary force to maintain your safety? I'd much prefer the second one.

Sure, necessary force is what you should use because that is what you are going to have to tell the police to avoid criminal prosecution and civil suits from "my baby didnt do nuffin" types.

And lastly, will I get straight answers for these questions?

I don't know, will it mean that I no longer get to hear you squawking "straw man" like a crow? cause I do so enjoy it.

[Ciabhán]

Tiny red X I don't understand how you relate to my post. ;P

[PointOfViewGun]

I would rather not have to kill someone, because then I have to hire an attorney, have my firearm held as evidence and clean up all the blood on my hard wood floors. Do you know how difficult it is to get blood stains off wood or persian rugs?

Sure, necessary force is what you should use because that is what you are going to have to tell the police to avoid criminal prosecution and civil suits from "my baby didnt do nuffin" types.

Well, these responses speak for themselves...

[Ummagumma]

The alternative is for these people to be defenceless and to die in the name of gun control.

Or emigrate to a safer country.

[Gelgoog]

Well, these responses speak for themselves...

Glad we got that cleared up.

[IlluminatiRex]

Or emigrate to a safer country.

You can be killed by anywhere in the world. No where is safer than somewhere else. You'll just be killed by different means.

Grass is greener on the other side?

[Ummagumma]

You can be killed by anywhere in the world. No where is safer than somewhere else. You'll just be killed by different means.

Grass is greener on the other side?

Not really, no. Surprised it could even be suggested.

[Markas]

You can be killed by anywhere in the world. No where is safer than somewhere else. You'll just be killed by different means.

Grass is greener on the other side?

Are you suggesting I'd be as safe in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, as I would in, say, Edinburgh?

[Ciabhán]

Are you suggesting I'd be as safe in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, as I would in, say, Edinburgh?

Replace Edinburgh with Glasgow and maybe...

You can be killed by anywhere in the world. No where is safer than somewhere else. You'll just be killed by different means.

Grass is greener on the other side?

While it's true that no where is completely safe the probability of being killed by another human in some places is far lower than in others.

[IlluminatiRex]

No where did I state you had less of a chance somewhere else, just that you can be killed by another human being anywhere in the world. Obviously a poverty stricken country run by warlords is going to have a higher homicide rate than a more developed less warlord type country. Population count makes a large difference as well.

Edit: Well I guess saying "no where is safer than somewhere else" can be interpreted as having the same chance, but in no way did I mean it like that.

Looking at the chart for the US, guess what's been going down? Homicade rates. D.C seems to have the highest rate in the country, but has gone down by almost 20 points in ten years, and in general it's been going down.

Even then, I shouldn't just be throwing around the term rates like that, because there are many factors that go into that rate. Population, density of said population, poverty level, development, who's in power etc...

[Ciabhán]

I understood what you meant it was just worded poorly in my opinion.

[IlluminatiRex]

I can agree with you on that.