- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Only if your home was condemned as a health hazard and you had to show cause to the Court why you are not in contempt for razing itIm pro gun, but in this scenario I think a flamethrower would be much better.
Care to explain why? I find it is often the refuge of those presented with a good argument to lash out into ad hominem attacks.
You had to go back 50 years?
Pick someone known from more recent times. I doubt many younger folks here know who you are talking about.
I would love to.
1) A gun owner is most likely going to keep a pistol near his bed. Worst case scenario, it'll be in his room closeby. He will get to his gun before the burglar gets to him.
2) When confronted in an invasion not involving premeditated assault/murder, chances are great that, when confronted, a thief will leave. He won't stay and fight, especially not when a gun can enter the picture.
3) No gun owner is going to "dive" into some cabinet - doubly so when a burglar is between them. Logic dictates that the homeowner runs away or says to take his stuff and not hurt him.
4) In a situation he cannot control, a burglar only needs to run and get out of the house before an owner goes and track down his gun and pursues, should he be dumb enough to do so. Once he's out of the place, he's safe. You can only shoot to kill when there is reasonable expectation of your life being in danger. A man shot in the back outside of the home is murdered, not a victim of self- defense.
You're British. As much as property crime is rampant in the UK, you should be a touch more educated about this. No such luck, huh?
The scenario is completely arbitrary, so sniping individual details is insignificant. What if it were one armed man? One unarmed man? Is there any scenario at all where you would abandon your anti-gun beliefs and wish you had a gun?
Every once in a while somebody says something so horrifically atrocious that it needs to be pointed out.
There is always Wikipedia.
The page "Famous people shot dead in their homes" does not exist.
I would love to.
1) A gun owner is most likely going to keep a pistol near his bed. Worst case scenario, it'll be in his room closeby. He will get to his gun before the burglar gets to him.
2) When confronted in an invasion not involving premeditated assault/murder, chances are great that, when confronted, a thief will leave. He won't stay and fight, especially not when a gun can enter the picture.
3) No gun owner is going to "dive" into some cabinet - doubly so when a burglar is between them. Logic dictates that the homeowner runs away or says to take his stuff and not hurt him.
4) In a situation he cannot control, a burglar only needs to run and get out of the house before an owner goes and track down his gun and pursues, should he be dumb enough to do so. Once he's out of the place, he's safe. You can only shoot to kill when there is reasonable expectation of your life being in danger. A man shot in the back outside of the home is murdered, not a victim of self- defense.
You're British. As much as property crime is rampant in the UK, you should be a touch more educated about this. No such luck, huh?
I don't know what level of training people have....but mine included defensive use of the weapon. Basically it is very simple:
1) Do not head to danger, wait for it to come to you and put something solid between you and it.
2) Create a safe zone with a firing window.
3) Do not aim for a lethal shot to the head.
4) Shoot at the largest target area on the exposed body.
5) Be prepared to fire multiple shots in needed.
Above all, do not have a gun you will not fire.
The scenario is completely arbitrary, so sniping individual details is insignificant. What if it were one armed man? One unarmed man? Is there any scenario at all where you would abandon your anti-gun beliefs and wish you had a gun?
Every once in a while somebody says something so horrifically atrocious that it needs to be pointed out.
Probably not. But the Sharon Tate page does.
Was she shot, by the way?
Somewhere in there, call 911.
Somewhere in there, call 911.
I'm pretty sure that she and Labianca were stabbed and cut up.
I do not live in fear of unlikely events happening.
I don't live in fear of unlikely events happening, but I still have weapons available, and I still fasten my seat belt.
There is no point in not being prepared to minimize the effects of unlikely events.
This is generally an afterthought, and not included in the training as it is not considered protective.
A 5 minute wait for help may very well kill you.
Really? I thought you were like this guy:
View attachment 67166389
or at the very least, this guy:
View attachment 67166390
Property crime rampant? Yeah, just like we're all murdering each-other with machetes over here, because, in your worldview, it is people who are fundamentally the problem, and no amount of good education and restriction from dangerous weapons will reduce murder.
Except, none of that's true. Property crime is lower here than in the US, just like murder is, as well as violent death.
Introducing guns to the equation only ever results in more death. I fail to see how anyone can argue against this.
Two can play this game.
What say you to this similarly unlikely and absurd situation:
Thieves break in to steal your TV, and you go downstairs to check it out. As is almost always the case, the thieves only want your stuff and to leave. They threaten you to go away, and they start to make good their escape.
Suddenly you dive for your gun cabinet near your TV, throw it open, and one of the thieves, upon realising his life is in mortal danger because some moron intends to shoot him, hits you over the head with his crowbar.
At what point do you wish you had not had any guns in the house?
Call 911 it is a multitasking kinda thing. If you have a phone handy, dial it, they can find where you are. If you are able to talk to them, all the better. It is not "call 911 and stay put"
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?