Do you own a gun?

[RPerry]

You can't necessarily group me, RP, j2, and buju in with criminals (or each other). I wouldn't bring my guns to my new house until I had gun locks (4 year-old now present). Someone else might have done it anyway but I happen to be paranoid about a child dying over some "I forgot" bullshit.

I would hope I wouldn't be grouped with criminals I make a habit out of not taking what doesn't belong to me.

I do like Vidcc's Idea of more training though. Anything that can help is a good thing, and can only make the situation better. I don't think they should only be allowed in the home though. Remember, I have already stated things are different according to where you live. Being I live in a tourist area, I would be more likely to have a problem in public, than in my own home.

[Snee]

When you drive what's to say you aren't shit at handling a car (and put more people in danger than me and my gun that take out so sparingly). You probably drive ten time more often than I use my gun.

I don't drive at all atm. But if I did the car would still be a tool for transport, not a deadly weapon. Cars are necessary for getting from one point to another, guns aren't. It's not a valid parallell, as they are totally different animals.

You have nunch-chuckas. What's to say you aren't shit at that too and bust yourself in the eye. You are fishing once again.

No, I don't, but even if I did, and did bust myself in the eye, it still doesn't compare with owning a gun. Accidentally discharge that and you might take someone out at the other side of the street, bash yourself with a nun-chuck in the eye, and you get a black eye.

I don't get drunk at home. Either way, fishing expedition.

Not sure I wanna' comment on that one. But I can say this, you might not get drunk at home, but I'm pretty sure you've gone home drunk at some point in your life.

The point tho', was that no one is perfect, at some point in your life you are bound to be performing below par when it comes to perception and coordination (you might have a fever, or be eating pain-killers), not to mention judgement-wise, if you do have a gun in the house, and you get the notion to use it, that's when an accident is more likely to happen.

This is a fact, and a point, hope you can grasp the concept.

Fishing again. This is not the movies. You don't go investigating. When having a gun it's not always wise to shoot. Example..

At work I missed being caught up in a bank robbery by 10 minutes (I was talking to a female I knew and she held me up). The guard from the armored truck went in but a gentleman walked in behind him with flower box in his hand. The robber pulled out a shotgun and the guard drew his weapon and shot the robber. You would think that was heroic but it wasn't whole story. Some of the guard's shot missed the robber and went clear across McPherson Square and into a mult tenant building a block away. McPherson Square is basically a park in the middle of downtown DC and it's one full square block. People go there to feed pigeons, read a book, bums beg for money (or sleep), etc. Luckily no one was killed.
The robber put many lives in danger and by his own, training should have given up the money. However....you can't say that the robber would not have blown away the guard anyway. He might have very saved his own skin.

His occupation includes handling a gun, he's not carrying that gun around 24/7. At the very least he's weeks, not to say months of basic training with regards to handling assailants as well as discharging firearms ahead of you.

If there's a day when he can't perform, he won't go to work. Anyone who attacks him at work is going to go after him when he's alert, awake, sober and so forth.

Someone who gets robbed in the middle of the night doesn't have that luxury.

Of course you don't go looking for trouble, no more than the guard, but that doesn't mean that you won't get caught off guard, or that you'll have time prepare yourself for them in the best possible place you can think of.

No do you? Gotta point? I have a gun for just in case shit and not to blow any person I can.

Yeah, the point is that you seem to assume that they are out to get you, if they aren't and you act in a threatening manner, then they might feel the need to take you out tho'. Scared or nervous people are dangerous people.

No shit. They could get me as I walk out my front door. Again, gotta point?

Yeah, most likely THEY AREN'T OUT TO KILL YOU, OK?

Uh huh. I also would safer in combat with a tank versus a jeep. Gotta point?

If no one is scared 'cos everyone is packing, then nobody wins.

Stating the obvious.....

If it's so obvious, why do you sound as if you expect them to break into your home and try to kill you?

Then the alarm post wasn't for you or I would have quoted just you or did a @SnnY shit doohicky.

I know it wasn't aimed at me specifically.

But still, this topic is about guns, and the fact that you feel the need to have every possible safeguard I'd use, and then some, even a gun, merits comment.

I think the original comment was intended to be read just so, no one thinks it's odd that you want alarms, or fences. It's the fact that you've got safeguard upon safeguard, with a gun on top, that seems strange.

That implies a whole lot more fear than I need to feel.

I wouldn't want everyone having guns readily available. That's part of the problem. You've got fathers that don't lock their shit up, and I'm not talking about they forgot, I'm talking about not locking it up and allowing their sons to play them.

I'm with you there. I also think it's admirable that you've taken those precautions you have.

It's the acceptance of guns as something necessary I've got issues with. I'd rather work from the assumption that any one who burglarizes me will do so when I'm not home. I think the chance of you needing the gun is smaller than the risk of an accident. but that's just the way I'd play the odds.

That's the key to this entire argument I think, how we'd play the odds.

No shit....we have a higher crime rate.
The problem with many of you guys conclusions is those numbers is numbers is that correlation does not equal cause and effect.

You can't necessarily group me, RP, j2, and buju in with criminals (or each other). I wouldn't bring my guns to my new house until I had gun locks (4 year-old now present). Someone else might have done it anyway but I happen to be paranoid about a child dying over some "I forgot" bullshit.

Nor is it possible to dismiss all accidental shootings as the actions of idiots, even those who take every precaution can make mistakes.

It's just something that happens, there's no such thing as a perfect human being, and nor is there such a thing as a person that doesn't make the occasional mistake.

However, the paranoia is good, it's the "I don't make mistakes" I've got problems with. That seems overconfident.





Having said that, if someone has to have a gun, I'd much prefer it to be only you and not capt. azztard, especially if I had to live nearby.

And lastly, fishing implies implausibility, nothing of what I have said is beyond the realm of possibility. Asking for a point, or dismissing something as fishing fills no purpose, it's sort of the same thing as saying you don't have an answer, IMO.

[vidcc]

I don't think they should only be allowed in the home though. Remember, I have already stated things are different according to where you live. Being I live in a tourist area, I would be more likely to have a problem in public, than in my own home.

And with that "in public" part my concerns increase infinitely and why I would want as the very minimum standard the same standard law enforcement officers have to go through. This not only includes gun handling but also tough training to cope with hostile situations in a professional manner and not just a vigilante manner. I would also expect any "civilian" that discharged their weapon in public to be tried for murder if they hit and killed a bystander.
I may seem to be a hard lined anti gun activist but this is just appearance. My concerns are directed at the "stupid" part of our laws coupled with the many people that have either a gung ho "dirty harry wannabe" attitude or those that only have heads to stop the rain going down their necks...or worse still... both.

There are people that can quite safely have guns and act responsibly ...unfortunately there is a significant amount of people that don't fit this description.

[Busyman]

I don't drive at all atm. But if I did the car would still be a tool for transport, not a deadly weapon. Cars are necessary for getting from one point to another, guns aren't. It's not a valid parallell, as they are totally different animals.

It's very valid. People fuck others up with negligent driving more than there are accidental shooting deaths whether or not the car was intended as a weapon. I use a gun to protect my family when and if that ever comes up and yet you haved focused on miniscule point.

No, I don't, but even if I did, and did bust myself in the eye, it still doesn't compare with owning a gun. Accidentally discharge that and you might take someone out at the other side of the street, bash yourself with a nun-chuck in the eye, and you get a black eye.

With a gun, I might also save my life and families life. We can might all day long. This is why I said you are fishing.

Not sure I wanna' comment on that one. But I can say this, you might not get drunk at home, but I'm pretty sure you've gone home drunk at some point in your life.

Uh huh and drunk driving deaths exceed accidental shootings.........

The point tho', was that no one is perfect, at some point in your life you are bound to be performing below par when it comes to perception and coordination (you might have a fever, or be eating pain-killers), not to mention judgement-wise, if you do have a gun in the house, and you get the notion to use it, that's when an accident is more likely to happen.
This is a fact, and a point, hope you can grasp the concept..

Listen to yourself. You are mighting like crazy now. I might have a fever? Get a grip. I could point out many facts about driving deaths and say we should outlaw cars. "You might be drowsy coming home and doze off and hit a family of 4."

His occupation includes handling a gun, he's not carrying that gun around 24/7. At the very least he's weeks, not to say months of basic training with regards to handling assailants as well as discharging firearms ahead of you.

If there's a day when he can't perform, he won't go to work. Anyone who attacks him at work is going to go after him when he's alert, awake, sober and so forth.

Someone who gets robbed in the middle of the night doesn't have that luxury.

Of course you don't go looking for trouble, no more than the guard, but that doesn't mean that you won't get caught off guard, or that you'll have time prepare yourself for them in the best possible place you can think of.

You apparently missed the point. The guard fucked up but again did he? He was trained yet endangered the lives of people in a multi-tenant building and a park?

Yeah, the point is that you seem to assume that they are out to get you, if they aren't and you act in a threatening manner, then they might feel the need to take you out tho'. Scared or nervous people are dangerous people.


Yeah, most likely THEY AREN'T OUT TO KILL YOU, OK?

Riiiight they just want to take my stuff....most likely. What about when I don't have a "most likely" burglar? I have made this point over and over about a just in case situation yet you seem to miss it conveniently.

If no one is scared 'cos everyone is packing, then nobody wins.

Uh yeah...whatever that means. It sounds like a goes without saying moment.

If it's so obvious, why do you sound as if you expect them to break into your home and try to kill you?

For nth time...
You can pussy up and be that one instance that the burglar blows you away 'cause he wants to flex. Since you are much into stats and googling, explain why when many people get carjacked they get shot anyway when the victim was giving up their keys. You would love to say that they put up a struggle but I know differently. People kill just because sometimes even when taking your shit. Children are killed in their beds...what threat were they?

Your logic doesn't work here. I tell you that I wouldn't go down to cap the burglar and conveniently "forget" that point to cover yours.

I know it wasn't aimed at me specifically.

But still, this topic is about guns, and the fact that you feel the need to have every possible safeguard I'd use, and then some, even a gun, merits comment.

I think the original comment was intended to be read just so, no one thinks it's odd that you want alarms, or fences. It's the fact that you've got safeguard upon safeguard, with a gun on top, that seems strange.

That implies a whole lot more fear than I need to feel.

So be it. If the situation ever arose that someone is coming to your children's bedroom then you sit on the fence and STFU.

I'M A JUST IN CASE KINDA GUY.

I'm with you there. I also think it's admirable that you've taken those precautions you have.

It's the acceptance of guns as something necessary I've got issues with. I'd rather work from the assumption that any one who burglarizes me will do so when I'm not home. I think the chance of you needing the gun is smaller than the risk of an accident. but that's just the way I'd play the odds.

That's the key to this entire argument I think, how we'd play the odds.

The problem with your odds is that when your number comes up, your odds are near 0. When mine comes up, I actually have a chance (and so does my kid).

Nor is it possible to dismiss all accidental shootings as the actions of idiots, even those who take every precaution can make mistakes.

It's just something that happens, there's no such thing as a perfect human being, and nor is there such a thing as a person that doesn't make the occasional mistake.

However, the paranoia is good, it's the "I don't make mistakes" I've got problems with. That seems overconfident.

I bet most accidental shootings are from the actions of idiots. I have never fallen off a telephone pole. Can't say that I won't but I have a certain process for climbing and don't deviate. It is ingrained and so is my handling of a gun.

Having said that, if someone has to have a gun, I'd much prefer it to be only you and not capt. azztard, especially if I had to live nearby.

And lastly, fishing implies implausibility, nothing of what I have said is beyond the realm of possibility. Asking for a point, or dismissing something as fishing fills no purpose, it's sort of the same thing as saying you don't have an answer, IMO.

No actually fishing implies plausibilty with remote validity. It implies many "ifs" and "buts" no matter what another's answer may be.
Remember your "fever" reference? "Hey I could step on thumb tack or a spider could bite me and threaten my concentration."

Fishing...

[Busyman]

And with that "in public" part my concerns increase infinitely and why I would want as the very minimum standard the same standard law enforcement officers have to go through. This not only includes gun handling but also tough training to cope with hostile situations in a professional manner and not just a vigilante manner. I would also expect any "civilian" that discharged their weapon in public to be tried for murder if they hit and killed a bystander.
I may seem to be a hard lined anti gun activist but this is just appearance. My concerns are directed at the "stupid" part of our laws coupled with the many people that have either a gung ho "dirty harry wannabe" attitude or those that only have heads to stop the rain going down their necks...or worse still... both.

There are people that can quite safely have guns and act responsibly ...unfortunately there is a significant amount of people that don't fit this description.

You don't sound anywhere near like a hard-lined gun activist. Your points are valid but it's nothing I haven't heard before.

A hard-lined gun activist would sue gunmakers for shooting deaths. It reminds me of 9/11 victims families suing the owners of the WTC. A hard-lined gun activist would remove the ability to buy guns without considering that criminals don't "buy" guns.

I would make gun owners responsible for deaths committed with their guns in most circumstances. Maybe they'll make sure to keep them locked up.

[Snee]

It's very valid. People fuck others up with negligent driving more than there are accidental shooting deaths whether or not the car was intended as a weapon. I use a gun to protect my family when and if that ever comes up and yet you haved focused on miniscule point.

It is not a minuscule point. Guns are lethal with the intention of being so. Cars aren't, we need cars to lead life the way we do. We don't need guns. You might live your life without ever having your house broken into, a majority of all people do just that.

You buy a gun on the off-chance that you might, just possibly, need it one day. And you are complaining about my "mights"?

Besides, logic dictates that cars would cause more deaths as they are used way more frequently than guns. For every bullet fired in your country, a car has rolled miles upon miles. At least they have a function other than causing harm.

With a gun, I might also save my life and families life. We can might all day long. This is why I said you are fishing.

Sure, you might do that, but on the other hand it's always in your home, a potential and highly substantial risk.

Uh huh and drunk driving deaths exceed accidental shootings.........

Yeah they do, but that doesn't mean the "lesser" risk doesn't exist.

Listen to yourself. You are mighting like crazy now. I might have a fever? Get a grip. I could point out many facts about driving deaths and say we should outlaw cars. "You might be drowsy coming home and doze off and hit a family of 4."

I do believe we are both doing it if so.

The thing is that risks exist even if we don't want them to. Cars aren't guns, risks involved with one doesn't have any bearing on risks involved with using another.

You apparently missed the point. The guard fucked up but again did he? He was trained yet endangered the lives of people in a multi-tenant building and a park?

No you missed the point, he screwed up, and this with far more training than you have.

And this when it was pretty much guaranteed that his mind, perception and judgement were in no way impaired.

Riiiight they just want to take my stuff....most likely. What about when I don't have a "most likely" burglar? I have made this point over and over about a just in case situation yet you seem to miss it conveniently.

True, you might not, but then again you might surprise an armed burglar with no intention of harming you, until he sees your gun.

If he wants to hurt you, those nice signs of yours have tipped him off anyway, if he really wants to get to you no amount of precautions on your part are going to stop him, and maybe a few of his closest friends from visiting.

Uh yeah...whatever that means. It sounds like a goes without saying moment.

Yeah, if everyone owns a gun, no one is more safe than if nobody did.

For nth time...
You can pussy up and be that one instance that the burglar blows you away 'cause he wants to flex. Since you are much into stats and googling, explain why when many people get carjacked they get shot anyway when the victim was giving up their keys. You would love to say that they put up a struggle but I know differently. People kill just because sometimes even when taking your shit. Children are killed in their beds...what threat were they?

Your logic doesn't work here. I tell you that I wouldn't go down to cap the burglar and conveniently "forget" that point to cover yours.

I fail to see how not living in fear is equal to "pussying up".

Given the situation in the US where everyone is packing, that might be the only way to be sure of conducting a successful carjack.

But if so many people own weapons over there, have a go at explaining why so many people get shot during carjacks even though they have guns.

If I was mad enough to try that in the US, I'd sure as hell go in firing, and I'd make sure I was doing it before you realised I was about to try it too.

I reckon those people would get popped, gun or not.

So be it. If the situation ever arose that someone is coming to your children's bedroom then you sit on the fence and STFU.

I'M A JUST IN CASE KINDA GUY.

I've noticed.

We look at risk differently. I'm not taking responsiblity of accidently shooting someone, or getting someone shot because of something I do, you'll point your gun at them and hope for the best.

Neither way is guaranteed to succeed.

The problem with your odds is that when your number comes up, your odds are near 0. When mine comes up, I actually have a chance (and so does my kid).

Unless it happens because you made a mistake that could have been avoided had you not held a gun.

I bet accidental shootings are from the actions of idiots. I have never fallen off a telephone pole. Can't say that I won't but I have a certain process for climbing and don't deviate. It is ingrained and so is my handling of a gun.

Just like car-accidents and plane-crashes, accidental shootings sometimes happen to perfectly ordinary people.

But, yes, you are less likely to shoot yourself or someone else, than an idiot with a gun.

No actually fishing implies plausibilty with remote validity. It implies many "ifs" and "buts" no matter what another's answer may be.
Remember your "fever" reference? "Hey I could step on thumb tack or a spider could bite me and threaten my concentration."

Fishing...

No, it implies that something lacks validity. The implication was that my arguments lacked a foundation, and that I was grasping for straws.

As in the case of the possibility of you having a fever, my points are perfectly valid, and possible. People frequently suffer from illness, you know. Whereas your proposed, equally valid in your opinion , scenario is far less likely.

Unless you are some kind of extra special super-mutant who can't get ill, of course.

[Snee]

I'll try and give this a response it deserves, later on. I fear I have to drop this now, however, as I too have things to do, incredible as it may seem.

Thanks for realizing that you might not have been at your most diplomatic tho'.

Nor have I probably, today.

[Busyman]

It is not a minuscule point. Guns are lethal with the intention of being so. Cars aren't, we need cars to lead life the way we do. We don't need guns. You might live your life without ever having your house broken into, a majority of all people do just that.

You buy a gun on the off-chance that you might, just possibly, need it one day. And you are complaining about my "mights"?

Besides, logic dictates that cars would cause more deaths as they are used way more frequently than guns. For every bullet fired in your country, a car has rolled miles upon miles. At least they have a function other than causing harm.


Sure, you might do that, but on the other hand it's always in your home, a potential and highly substantial risk.


Yeah they do, but that doesn't mean the "lesser" risk doesn't exist.



I do believe we are both doing it if so.

The thing is that risks exist even if we don't want them to. Cars aren't guns, risks involved with one doesn't have any bearing on risks involved with using another.



No you missed the point, he screwed up, and this with far more training than you have.

And this when it was pretty much guaranteed that his mind, perception and judgement were in no way impaired.


True, you might not, but then again you might surprise an armed burglar with no intention of harming you, until he sees your gun.

If he wants to hurt you, those nice signs of yours have tipped him off anyway, if he really wants to get to you no amount of precautions on your part are going to stop him, and maybe a few of his closest friends from visiting.


Yeah, if everyone owns a gun, no one is more safe than if nobody did.




I fail to see how not living in fear is equal to "pussying up".

Given the situation in the US where everyone is packing, that might be the only way to be sure of conducting a successful carjack.

But if so many people own weapons over there, have a go at explaining why so many people get shot during carjacks even though they have guns.

If I was mad enough to try that in the US, I'd sure as hell go in firing, and I'd make sure I was doing it before you realised I was about to try it too.

I reckon those people would get popped, gun or not.


I've noticed.

We look at risk differently. I'm not taking responsiblity of accidently shooting someone, or getting someone shot because of something I do, you'll point your gun at them and hope for the best.

Neither way is guaranteed to succeed.



Unless it happens because you made a mistake that could have been avoided had you not held a gun.


Just like car-accidents and plane-crashes, accidental shootings sometimes happen to perfectly ordinary people.

But, yes, you are less likely to shoot yourself or someone else, than an idiot with a gun.



No, it implies that something lacks validity. The implication was that my arguments lacked a foundation, and that I was grasping for straws.

As in the case of the possibility of you having a fever, my points are perfectly valid, and possible. People frequently suffer from illness, you know. Whereas your proposed, equally valid in your opinion , scenario is far less likely.

Unless you are some kind of extra special super-mutant who can't get ill, of course.

Well you are grasping at straws. Saying that I can a fever and then relate it to handling a gun on the very oft chance they would happen at the same time and then to further that say that it will affect judgement is....fishing.

I tell you I handle my gun rarely yet because you just don't like guns, find any remote reason to say it's a bad thing to have one. This could done with ANYTHING.

Further prove as to the "you don't know what you are talking about" department is that not everyone is packing. You even conveniently added the carjackers kill people because everyone has a gun.
I know that people get shot simply because some robbers think it's easier to have no one screaming and moving around and just take what they want.

Btw using the word might on my part directly correlates to my reason for owning a gun. Yours is a fishing expedition.

Logic dictates that my owning a gun could save my life. Having it my house is not a risk since it is locked. It is loaded at the gun range and unloaded before I leave there.

Your views of America are born out of ignorance. I couldn't claim to know of your area having not been there. This is not Beirut.

Watch F9/11 again or something. Gun activists focus on those that improperly hande guns to prove a point and ignore those with proper handling. You got me mixed up son.

[DanB]

You got me mixed up son.

Busyman = [B][O][T] ???

[GepperRankins]

busy has a gun but no ammo? a sure fire way to get yourself shot i'd say

Watch F9/11 again or something. Gun activists focus on those that improperly handle guns to prove a point and ignore those with proper handling. You got me mixed up son.

guns have no place in modern society, so it is possible to live with no guns and then there would be no improper use of them.

i started reading this page backwards and got bored there, please to be not spouting meaningless drivel