1

So what inane, extremist position are you attempting to gain over him by making him sound like he's sitting around in a wife beater drinking a Natty Ice with your replies? Until the sun stops shining, there will be an endless sea of stupid people always doing stupid things, some of who will inevitably purchase firearms and do said stupid things with them. The same stupid people get behind the wheels of cars and kill families on their way to vacations because they're texting or drink and shoot off fireworks and blow their friend's eye out. He's just vying for himself and many other gun owners by saying that there are measures to take, and like the intelligent person he is, does utilize to insure his wellbeing by owning a firearm, and in the process, protecting the wellbeing of others by owning one responsibly. It's not Hollywood. Americans aren't sleeping with pistols under their pillows.

And ardav--I suggest you look at a per capita comparison between the US and Mexico.

@Biker - yeah, that'll be the macho posturing I was talking about.

Allowing, though, that you're about the deadliest superhero with watchful eyes to put a hawk's to shame, bear in mind that most people are not that, and if they try to be like you, you're going to have a lot of dead and injured non-muggers (false positives) and a lot of well-armed muggers (false negatives).

0

> And ardav--I suggest you look at a per capita comparison between the US and Mexico.

Comparing what? Or should I be contrasting? Don't know what the hell you're talking about. Guns owned? Guns owned lawfully? Guns owned unlawfully? Guns used? Guns used lawfully? Guns used unlawfully? Under 3's killed by firearms? People shot by Under 9's? Number of High School Massacres (HSMs)? Successful hostage retrieval on payment of ransom? Housing conditions in suburbs? Gang membership? Chilli-eating stats?

//Off topic
Just a point - haven't heard of one of those (HSMs) recently. Does this mean that there is better security at schools or that less children are packing heat? Hope you're not due another though.

Edited by diafol: n/a

0

> my bedside gun box is blind bolted with in reach of my bed for my wife and I and opens with a finger print reader set to both mine and my wife's finger prints.

I'm speechless - almost.

I'm waiting for the next installment that carries on...

"..the laser-sight is automatically adjusted to our retinal optima via skin DNA reader on the photon pulse block..."

Are you Mr and Mrs Smith?

ardav go here and view tech beyond your wildest dreams http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-vault-biometric.html. Later---

0

@Biker - yeah, that'll be the macho posturing I was talking about.

Allowing, though, that you're about the deadliest superhero with watchful eyes to put a hawk's to shame, bear in mind that most people are not that, and if they try to be like you, you're going to have a lot of dead and injured non-muggers (false positives) and a lot of well-armed muggers (false negatives).

as I said acquire a little knowledge on the subject before posting myths. Later---

0

So what inane, extremist position are you attempting to gain over him by making him sound like he's sitting around in a wife beater drinking a Natty Ice with your replies?

You can decide whether you think it's inane, but it's certainly not an extremist position I'm advocating. I'm suggesting that if people stop yapping on about an absolute ban or an absolute right to keep and bear, and instead talk about what they're actually concerned about, there might be a lot of yammering spared, and the jackasses at the NRA and the HCI might have to go out and get real jobs.

0

ardav go here and view tech beyond your wildest dreams http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-vault-biometric.html. Later---

That's so cool Biker. Like it. I'd keep my crisps (potato chips to you) in there to stop my wife from eating them. You could keep your porn in there too. Brilliant.

Trouble is, my crisps could be lifted by an opportunist purloiner unless I recessed the box into a wall. That's expensive. Perhaps I'll keep my crisps under the pillow - easy access, and handy to throw at opportunist purloiners as they step through the bedroom door.

0

For me, it has nothing to do with society. Screw society. If I want to go buy a gun tomorrow to shoot holes in a tree in my backyard, that should be my right. A few maniacs running around blowing each others' heads off doesn't invalidate that right.

There's already gun regulation for convicts and other similarly dangerous elements of society. Better they have the means to show themselves for what they really are. Some Milton perhaps to convince the Brits:

"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence."
"I made [man] just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall."

Let's not go playing God, shall we gentlemen?

0

And did you read this part of the article? The cops were completely at fault for that killing, which should not have happened.

Three officers were tried for manslaughter and other charges surrounding falsification and were sentenced to ten, six, and five years respectively.

0

Yeah, I actually followed the whole thing when it first hit the news - it was first being swept under the carpet saying it was her fault for shooting at the police. Even then I was extremely torqued about her getting killed protecting her home even when it was believed the police were using SOP - then when it all unraveled, I nearly went ballistic.

How is a person to know if the home invasion is the police or not when they don't announce and have no-knock warrants.

0

GJ/AD
How does this case strengthen or weaken the argument on either side? Bent coppers planting evidence on a dead/dying innocent woman who shot at them. It can be argued that she'd still be alive today if she did not have a gun. Likewise she may have needed some protection against trigger happy cops that got so carried away that they shot themselves three times. Guns. Makes you laugh, if it weren't so tragic.

0

I agree with you here, Ardav. This is more a case for restraining the cops than anything else. There's certainly plenty of cases - Amadou Diallo - of unarmed civilians being perforated by nervous cops, so the poor woman in this case would not necessarily have been any safer unarmed. She would certainly have been better off if the the cops hadn't broken into her house without identifying themselves.

One thing's for sure, her gun didn't make her any safer in this case - the "I keep a gun to defend myself from the government" position certainly won't find any help here.

0

I was not strengthening/weakening a case - just throwing a data point out. Back a ways, I mentioned how much I enjoy shooting (I grew up in Montana and used a .3030 to hunt gophers - not something I am proud of, just something I used to do).

Some of the Darwin Awards for gun use can stand with some of the Home Defense stories for gun use.

0

>>the "I keep a gun to defend myself from the government" position certainly won't find any help here.

But it sure would if all citizens were armed and willing/able to use them when Hitler took over Germany. And we would do the same if someone tried to pull a coup d'état in USA.

0

>But it sure would if all citizens were armed and willing/able to use them when Hitler took over Germany. And we would do the same if someone tried to pull a coup d'état in USA.

Would it really AD? You'd end up having a 20-way bullet-ridden civil war once 'authority' was overthrown. You really see all your brothers-in-arms buddying up together to get rid of a 'coupist', who would be favouring different factions within your country? You'd have anarchy - for some considerable time.

1

>But it sure would if all citizens were armed and willing/able to use them when Hitler took over Germany. And we would do the same if someone tried to pull a coup d'état in USA.


I have some trouble with this claim as well, starting with the obvious point that Hitler did not come to power by a coup d'etat - he gained elected office legally, and as far as I've studied, doesn't seem to have done much that was very illegal in increasing his power. Certainly nothing that you could use to rally the citizens to the barricades, at any rate, and that's what you're talking about. The only citizens that were rallied to the barricades, remember, were on his side.

So the historical framing is questionable, but more dubious to my eyes is the notion that you could posit a plausible situation in which a large body of armed citizens would be an effective and a good solution to a political controversy in the contemporary United States (say, within 50 years of now). I may be wrong though - fire away if you've got one for me.

Edited by jon.kiparsky: Clarification

Votes + Comments
Good, thoughtful answer - wish I had said it.
0

Here in Canada we always have a battle over guns every few years one of the big cities tries to ban them, but most of the guns used in crimes are illegally smuggled in from the US (thanks a lot) and there are a lot of people who use gun for hunting and they of course oppose all forms banning guns even when they try to ban only hand guns.

I think anywhere that doesn't have a significant number of hunters should ban all guns except for law-enforcement/military because it is well known most homicides are by gun and I believe the statistics are that your more likely to be killed if you own a gun than if you don't.

Guns don't protect you unless you live in a country with inept policing/justice system.

0

It's not Hollywood. Americans aren't sleeping with pistols under their pillows.

Although I have seen an ad for a bed with gun holders on either side so you can sleep with guns ready and within arms reach.

1

Although I have seen an ad for a bed with gun holders on either side so you can sleep with guns ready and within arms reach.

I don't know about the rest of you, but in my case that would go something like this:
"Oh, jesus, a fuckin' burglar! Okay, hang on, would you go away for half an hour while I have a coffee and then come back so I can shoot you properly?"

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.