Robbie Loucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 372
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Calm down bro. I clearly meant firearm usage by the public as opposed to banning it and only allowing the government to use firearms.I'm not the one that needs a clue bro.
I'm not a bro.
You mean like the plan where you start a gunfight first?
You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.
The best thing to do is what you think is best. Nobody's opinion of what you should do is better than your own. You couldn't do correctly what I would do. And vice verse. If I wake to find armed men in my home I already consider myself dead unless I do something fast. I'll be damned if I will be forced to watch and hear my wife being raped.You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.
You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.
No, when you adopt that is a requirement of the home study. Moreover, the odds of a grease fire in your kitchen, while not high, are far greater than the odds of ever being the victim of a violent home invasion. I also keep a shotgun in the back of our bedroom closet with shells next to it. The rest of my hunting guns I keep down at my dad's in rural Arkansas because chances are if we ever were robbed, it would almost certainly be when no one was home, and all that having a bunch of guns in my house would accomplish is getting a bunch of guns stolen.
My point was the scenario described in the opening post was a silly one because its so extremely rare for such a thing to happen in the vast majority of neighborhoods. Of course, if a violent home invasion were to occur at my house I would want to be armed. Who wouldn't want to be. Similarly, if God exists and decided to punish the world with another great flood, I would be glad we have a canoe. The latter scenario only slightly less likely than the former.
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?
The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
you are home asleep in bed, armed men are in your home. that pretty much defines "confronted" to me.
Calm down bro. I clearly meant firearm usage by the public as opposed to banning it and only allowing the government to use firearms.
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.
It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.
Any one coming to your home, in groups or alone may very well require an armed response. If you are not prepared for that, then what.No, when you adopt that is a requirement of the home study. Moreover, the odds of a grease fire in your kitchen, while not high, are far greater than the odds of ever being the victim of a violent home invasion. I also keep a shotgun in the back of our bedroom closet with shells next to it. The rest of my hunting guns I keep down at my dad's in rural Arkansas because chances are if we ever were robbed, it would almost certainly be when no one was home, and all that having a bunch of guns in my house would accomplish is getting a bunch of guns stolen.
My point was the scenario described in the opening post was a silly one because its so extremely rare for such a thing to happen in the vast majority of neighborhoods. Of course, if a violent home invasion were to occur at my house I would want to be armed. Who wouldn't want to be. Similarly, if God exists and decided to punish the world with another great flood, I would be glad we have a canoe. The latter scenario only slightly less likely than the former.
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.
It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.
wrong=there are many many more defensive gun uses than suicides. And there is no evidence that people deprived of guns have lower suicide rates. Just check out Japan
I use bro as a gender neutral term. I recognize that you identify yourself as a female.I'm calm. I'm also a female.
Please dont expect me to try and carry on a rational conversation with someone who willfully or ignorantly cant figure the simplest of things out.
If every weak minded loser would do just that, imagine how much better our nation would be.A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.
I suspect you are right on the defensive use of guns compared to suicide but lets all admit that the statistics are hardly hard and fast and the exact numbers are up for debate.
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
As far as Japan goes, using their suicide numbers (which you did not provide or refer to) are very very misleading since the cultural view of suicide is radically different than the same practice in the USA and guns play little role in the situation either way. The last time I checked, Japan was barely in the top ten of suicide rates - which is still high just the same. But the existence or non existence of guns in their culture plays no role in that either way.
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.
It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.
And? So we should disarm everyone to make sure no one commits suicide? Of course some people will, and that's their perrogative. I'd rather have them take themselves out that way than to endanger anyone else jumping off a building or doing something in a car.
The question in the OP was if you would want a gun or not, and you stated you did, so what else is there?
sounds like you should be advocating banning Liquor.
Oh wait, remind me how that worked the last time we tried that
If every weak minded loser would do just that, imagine how much better our nation would be.
For the record. I don't advocate banning weapons. I just don't want one in my house.
I prefer people kill themselves with a gun rather than say jump out of buildings, or worse yet-drive the wrong way on highways: such an attempt was unsuccessful in one case I know of but it orphaned two girls I grew up with since their parents' porsche was no match for the large station wagon some guy trying to kill himself was driving.
Furthermore, I am fundamentally opposed to limiting the rights of one person because another person cannot properly exercise such rights.
I certainly join you in agreeing that whatever the method , they not create other victims they take with them. But having said that, I cannot imagine what it is like to come home and find a family member who has killed themselves via firearm and find their brains and blood splattered about and have to clean that up. While that family member or loved one is not a dead victim - they certainly are some sort of harmed person just the same.
Enlighten us. How much better would our nation be?
Half our problems are from whiney little pukes that should off themselves the moment the urge strikes them. Harsh? Yes. Real? Yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?