Quote :

"I'm not really sure what point they're trying to prove."

another point of the video is that even the anti-gun guy admitted that a "gun free" sign would make him less safe because criminals prefer unarmed victims

1/19/2013 7:22:30 PM

all they need to do is put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in front of their house and they shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?

1/19/2013 7:39:51 PM

then they could just claymore the place and everything would work out, right?

no guns in that zone.

[Edited on January 19, 2013 at 7:56 PM. Reason : i assume you know a claymore is a directional trip explosive..]

1/19/2013 7:55:24 PM

That dumbass at the gun show didn't exactly help with the stereotype of gun nuts being primarily dipshit crackers.

/that dude always selling the nazi shit at the gun show ain't helping either
// gun owner

1/19/2013 9:04:08 PM

Which gun show? The one in Raleigh, or the one in Indianapolis, or the one in Cleveland?

1/19/2013 10:21:57 PM

^^^ or often command-detonated.



Also, I have never been to a gun show.

1/19/2013 10:56:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't see what a security system is for if you're home, unless you have a really big house where conceivably you could be in one part of the house and not hear an intruder enter somewhere else."

You mean those of us who don't live in a double-wide or, you know, sleep at home.

Quote :

"If I'm not home, I have door locks and homeowner's insurance."

You've got a daughter, man. What happens if she's home with a babysitter and you're not? Are you only going to hire teenage girls to babysit her with weapon experience?

1/20/2013 1:24:07 PM

I don't understand what you mean about not living in a double-wide.

As far as sleeping, I keep all my doors and windows locked when I'm asleep (and in general). If someone breaks a window or crowbars open a door, I am pretty confident that I'll wake up.

Aside from that, it's not like I care about a security system calling the cops. By the time they got here, one way or another, I won't need them. Plus, I don't have a land-line. There's the loud alarm, but again, I should already be awake. I'm gonna be the hell out of the house if I have a chance, or ready to empty the magazine into the intruder if I don't.


As far as my daughter, I've actually never left her with a babysitter. I only have her half the time; I spend that half of my time with her myself. If something comes up (have to work late, etc), her mom lives about 2 miles from me, so she just stays with her until I'm home.

1/20/2013 3:30:30 PM

The idea was that a double-wide is sufficiently small that you would hear an intruder breaking in.

I, for one, don't have confidence in my ability to wake up if a tractor-trailer crashes into my bedroom.

1/20/2013 6:17:03 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-domestic-gunfire-than-all-wars-in-u-s-history-is-that-true/

making its rounds on facebook right now

doesnt break down the numbers based on murder, suicide, police action, etc

not surprising

[Edited on January 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM. Reason : -]

1/20/2013 6:51:47 PM

A few problems with the conclusions they are drawing:

1. The numbers aren't normalized to reflect population in US vs number of service members in the wars
2. Between 1968 and the present numerous gun control measures have been legislated calling into question the basis of calling for more gun control based on those numbers
3. Taken at face value (as they are presented) those numbers reflect that troops facing actual assault rifles in combat are dying at a lower rate than civilians facing hand guns on the street, making a case against AWB. Not to mention troops in combat have considerably better PPE than the average Joe.

But I agree, nothing surprising.

1/21/2013 12:04:14 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/20/justice/new-mexico-shooting/index.html

1/21/2013 1:01:59 AM

Quote :

"As crummy as popular militias have proven at defending against "sudden foreign invasions", they've been even worse at defending against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers". There is, I think, not a single case in modern history, certainly not since the invention of the Gatling gun. No popular militia has ever prevented the seizure of power by an authoritarian ruler. In countries with well-established democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers are rare; when they occur, popular militias do not resist, or are ruthlessly crushed by national armed forces. In countries with weak democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers sometimes go smoothly, or in other cases touch off periods of civil war, which are resolved when one faction finally defeats the others and imposes authoritarian rule. Name your authoritarian takeover: Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Egypt, Libya, Brazil, Greece, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Syria—popular militias never resist authoritarian takeover and preserve democracy or civil freedoms. That is a thing that happens in silly movies. It is not a thing that happens in the world. I don't really understand why Mr Williamson is even making this argument. There is no one in America today trying to argue that Americans should be able to purchase semi-automatic weapons only so long as they are members of a well-regulated militia; such an interpretation of the second amendment would have excluded Nancy Lanza and the vast majority of semi-automatic weapons owners. The Supreme Court has not held that Americans have a right to own semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, it has held that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defence in the home. If Americans were in fact interested in privately owning weapons that allow them to contend against the US Army, semi-automatic weapons would be as useless as BB guns against a grizzly—just enough to make the opponent angry. At a minimum, they would need fully automatic heavy-caliber weapons, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and tanks. Those are illegal."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-1

1/21/2013 1:31:46 AM

Quote :

"So deep was this “prudent jealousy entertained by the people of standing armies” that the major debate over the plan of national defense contained in the Constitution stemmed from the demands of many that a peacetime army should be forbidden entirely. To answer this, the authors of the Federalist argued not only for the utility of a small, permanent army but, further, that the militia would always be great enough to overcome a usurpation of the people’s liberties by the national government. Madison, in No. 46, for example, argues that the standing army which the nation could support would not exceed twentyfive or thirty thousand men and could never conquer the militia, “near half a million citizens with arms in their hands . . . fighting for their common liberties. . . . ” Among the numerous advantages of the militias Madison refers to “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”"

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495


the president is not allowed to use federal troops to enforce laws on U.S. soil. to work-around this, he was given authority over the National Guard.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 9:26 AM. Reason : dfas]

1/21/2013 9:24:49 AM

he's still not allowed to enforce federal law with the national guard

1/21/2013 11:15:29 AM

Quote :

"As far as sleeping, I keep all my doors and windows locked when I'm asleep (and in general). If someone breaks a window or crowbars open a door, I am pretty confident that I'll wake up. "

And what about when you don't?

It just amazes me that so many gun owners are all about "protection", yet they don't consider anything other than that gun. Basically, you're protecting any adult in the house who can fire the gun and your kids if you're around.

Quote :

"Aside from that, it's not like I care about a security system calling the cops. By the time they got here, one way or another, I won't need them. "

Cops are unnecessary. theDuke866 has got this covered. Gotcha.

1/21/2013 12:53:11 PM

I have firearms, a security system, safes, pepper spray, fire extinguishers, heat detectors, smoke detectors, etc. The security system is setup so that most rooms and/or entries have duplicate monitoring. I also have 2 dogs. So much for gun owners only have guns.

And you don't need a land line for a security system; most companies offer cellular at the same price. Cellular systems are also safer since there is no phone line to cut and most intruders aren't lugging around cell jammers. I know I wouldn't wake up if an intruder broke in, depending on where he broke in; I'm a deep sleeper.



[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2013 1:01:55 PM

^^ i have a security alarm system, a dog that will bark his nuts off, and my gun. the last resort is my gun. if someone is brazen enough to enter my home with an alarm system going off, a dog barking and likely me yelling, there's more than enough evidence to me that i very well may need my gun.

i don't actually want to need to use my gun and i truly believe that the large majority of gun owners feel the same way. being prepared does not imply any desire for an event.

1/21/2013 1:17:24 PM

Quote :

"I have firearms, a security system, safes, pepper spray, fire extinguishers, heat detectors, smoke detectors, etc. The security system is setup so that most rooms and/or entries have duplicate monitoring. I also have 2 dogs."

Jesus. What are you preparing for? Why not get some sweet laser guns, bro? What in the hell could you possibly have in your home that requires that much security? Do you have the original Mona Lisa, preserved dinosaur eggs, and the cure for cancer locked away in your closet? Christ.

Quote :

"i don't actually want to need to use my gun"

Yes you do, Fry. You know with your whole heart that you do, Fry. You wouldn't have gotten that gun unless you knew deep down that you'd like to use that gun, and you know it Fry. C'mon, Fry, don't lie to yourself.

People buy food because they want to eat. They buy books because they want to read. They buy condoms because they want to get laid. And they buy guns because they want to shoot something. So why on earth do you all lie to yourselves about that obvious reality?

1/21/2013 2:20:35 PM

Quote :

"What in the hell could you possibly have in your home that requires that much security? "

maybe, like, his life

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM. Reason : can't believe i'm even replying to this chucklefuck]

1/21/2013 2:32:42 PM

I didn't realize he lived in a fucking cave, where he's in constant fear of being eaten by wolves.

You can't believe your responding to me? I can't believe that I have to point out how irrational it is to believe that one is in constant threat of having their home invaded by vikings who want to pillage and plunder.

1/21/2013 2:36:10 PM

^ you can't really begrudge someone their personal level of paranoia.

Some people sleep with their doors unlocked, some prefer a stronger safety net.

1/21/2013 2:45:16 PM

I don't think I'm begrudging. I'm just criticizing the state of mind one would have to have in order to warrent multiple levels of surveillance, heat detectors, pepper spray, etc. on top of a security system/dogs/firearms.

I don't really understand how I'm the chucklefuck in this scenario for suggesting that these levels of preparation are beyond the pale. Honestly, just get a moat. Maybe some trap doors. A surprise guillotine, perhaps? Maybe some sweet flame throwers and years supply of Spam, just in case?

I could maybe understand those measures if you were an important person to society, or a high level target or something. But odds are, he's just your standard internet douchebag who's of little consequence and minimal value to would-be assailants.

I dunno, that's just me being reasonable.

1/21/2013 2:56:00 PM

Quote :

"Yes you do, Fry. You know with your whole heart that you do, Fry. You wouldn't have gotten that gun unless you knew deep down that you'd like to use that gun, and you know it Fry. C'mon, Fry, don't lie to yourself. People buy food because they want to eat. They buy books because they want to read. They buy condoms because they want to get laid. And they buy guns because they want to shoot something. So why on earth do you all lie to yourselves about that obvious reality? "

troll a little harder

1/21/2013 3:06:30 PM

^^I think you're overvaluing the (un) likeliness of the event and undervaluing the severity of the event.

I don't think wdprice's listed precautions are over the top. They're definitely not comparable to the caricature you've provided.

The low probability of a home invasion and the relative probability your gun will be used to harm you or someone in your home are good points, however.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2013 3:08:34 PM

^^^ that's the beauty of America.

Whether you're a paranoid internet douchebag or just a normal person, you can enjoy the lifestyle of your choosing without persecution (to an extent).

There's 300 million people in this country; we're not all the same.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2013 3:09:20 PM

Quote :

"I don't think wdprice's listed precautions are over the top. They're definitely not comparable to the caricature you've provided."

My only goal in this thread, from the onset, is to get gun owners to admit that they don't want guns to resist state oppression, but rather because they want it for self defense. And beyond that, to admit that they fantasize about using it for self defense.

The whole, "I have a gun so that I can flee my home in the event of an emergency" is absolute horse shit, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone to take that line of thought at face value.

I don't have a problem with people who use guns for sport. That's their right. And I really don't have an issue with people who keep a gun in their home for "defense" -- it's stupid, irresponsible, and counter productive, in my opinion, but I'm not about to prevent them from doing it.

But I really don't understand why its so hard for gun owners to admit that it gives them wood to think about the situations that they would allow them to use their gun. That's why they got it, so why can't they just admit it?

1/21/2013 3:26:24 PM

Quote :

"People buy food because they want to eat. They buy books because they want to read. They buy condoms because they want to get laid. And they buy guns because they want to shoot something."

And why do people buy extra home insurance? Is it because they want their possessions stolen or a tornado to destroy their house? And why do they buy condoms again? You don't need a condom to get laid. They buy condoms to mitigate the threat of pregnancy and STDs. Why do some cyclist decide to buy bicycle helmets? Is it because they want to get hit by a car or go head-first into a tree? No, they hope they never get in an accident, but they want a helmet just in case they ever do. Sorry man, your logic is failing in this argument.

1/21/2013 3:28:31 PM

I just don't agree with your logic here. Most people don't fantasize about using their life insurance policy but have it as a contingency in case something bad happens. Preparing for the worst isn't evidence of hoping that it happens. I doubt most reasonable people fantasize about being in a situation where they have a much greater than normal chance of dying themselves.

The people you're describing are psychotic, and I don't think it applies to a vast majority of "for self defense" gun owners.

1/21/2013 3:31:07 PM

Quote :

" Preparing for the worst isn't evidence of hoping that it happens."

That's a fair argument, I'll give you that. But I should point out that the point of insurance is to restore balance after the fact. And that helmets are to solely prevent personal injury (which would make them more analogous with a bullet proof vest rather than a gun).

Guns, on the other hand, are "defensive" directly as a result of their ability to hurt someone else. Nobody should be under any illusions about how a gun keeps one "safe." It keeps you safe by killing someone else before they have a chance to harm you. If you own a gun and keep it near you at all times, then I think it's silly to assume that you don't think about a situation in which you would use it.

1/21/2013 3:44:27 PM

Quote :

"But I really don't understand why its so hard for gun owners to admit that it gives them wood to think about the situations that they would allow them to use their gun."

No doubt some gun nuts fantasize about it, but you're waaaay over-generalizing here. i would hope i'd never need to use a gun. i don't want to awake to the terror of hearing somebody trying to break into my home. even though i wouldn't have much sympathy for someone robbing my home, i would not want to have to shoot someone, watch them bleed, suffer and possibly die. i imagine it'd be very traumatizing and would weigh very heavily on my conscious. but if it's either that or be assaulted or killed, i'd rather have the chance to stay alive. and i know that having a gun won't keep you alive in all situations (awaking to them standing over your bed with a gun at your head), but i'd like to know that if the threat arises, i've taken precautions to have a fighting chance. but in no way do i fantasize about killing someone. it'd be a last resort that i certainly wouldn't take lightly, and i wouldn't enjoy it at all.

sounds like you've lived a sheltered life and have never known someone who's had their home broken into and been assaulted. it happens. nobody thinks it will happen to them, most people never think they'll die in a car wreck, but how many people does that happen to every year?

1/21/2013 3:46:02 PM

Quote :

"If you own a gun and keep it near you at all times, then I think it's silly to assume that you don't think about a situation in which you would use it."

Of course they think about those situations. But it's silly to assume that thinking about it "gives them wood".

1/21/2013 3:47:44 PM

jesushchrist going full retard itt.

he must fantasize about getting beaten, looted, and watching his wife being raped. it's the only logical conclusion, since he chooses to not own a gun.

1/21/2013 3:51:22 PM

Quote :

"sounds like you've lived a sheltered life and have never known someone who's had their home broken into and been assaulted."

The majority of my world views have been formed as a direct result of not living a sheltered life. Most of the things you've described have not only happened to someone I know, but some of those have actually happened to me. The main difference being that I didn't start bugging out over it and staying strapped at all times, because I realize that a gun wouldn't prevent most of the things you're thinking about.

Quote :

" i would hope i'd never need to use a gun"

Then why do you have it? Do you never use it? Because that would just seem weird -- to have a gun that you never use.

C'mon, man. You use that thing recreationaly. That's fine, by the way. But just own up to it.

You enjoy shooting it. Why is that so difficult to admit?

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2013 4:26:01 PM

Quote :

"Jesus. What are you preparing for? Why not get some sweet laser guns, bro? What in the hell could you possibly have in your home that requires that much security? Do you have the original Mona Lisa, preserved dinosaur eggs, and the cure for cancer locked away in your closet? Christ."

I'll feed the troll. Let's see, pretty much every home (per code) has smoke detectors. It's also a good idea and no more money to have heat/smoke detectors. I didn't know that trying to alert those in the house of a possible fire is seen as paranoid. I bought fire extinguishers in case you know, there's ever a fire and I need it to either 1) put it out or 2) use it to clear a path to escape. I guess I'm crazy for having these and home owner's insurance, just in case something happens. I bought homeowner's insurance because I want to use it. A security system is surely a crazy thing to have. Almost no one has such a system, as only the paranoid need one. I'd rather not be alerted if my house is broken into; or if a fire starts. I bought vicious dogs that will kill any stranger in my house. Those bastards can lick a son of a bitch to death I tell ya. And I should just throw away the pepper spray and start shooting stray/loose dogs that attack/are aggressive when I'm outside, especially with my dogs. I have a few firearms that I constantly cling to while I'm at home. I never have less than 4 on my person and several hidden in various locations. I do a security sweep every thirty minutes and alert local law enforcement as to current conditions at my home every hour. I can't wait to use my guns on someone. That amazing feeling of having the cops show up, guns drawn, searching me and my house, interrogating me, and possibly giving me a ride to the station to 'clear things up'. Not to mention the emotional toll of using deadly force. Man, everyone wants that on their mind.

Quote :

"Then why do you have it? Do you never use it? Because that would just seem weird -- to have a gun that you never use. "

This is one of the worst responses I've seen. People only buy stuff because they want to use it? Gotcha.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2013 4:58:44 PM

Do you own your own turnout gear and fire truck? Why not, you trust the fire department? When seconds count, they are minutes away.

1/21/2013 5:02:00 PM

Quote :

"Then why do you have it? Do you never use it? Because that would just seem weird"

i do shoot at a range occasionally. yeah, it's fun, and i want to make sure that if i ever needed to use it, i actually knew how to. but how does that prove your point? what is your point again?

i'm more and more convinced that you're trolling and don't believe the logic you're using. i hope i never use my home insurance, but i bought it. i hope i never have to use my dead bolts, but i still bought them and use them. i hope i never have to use the lock on my shed, but i bought one anyways and keep it locked. i hope my stove never catches fire, but i bought a fire extinguisher that i keep beside my stove just in case. i hope lightning never strikes my house, but i've bought and use lightning protection on my valuable electronics, just in case. i hope my hot water heater never overheats, but i have a pressure valve to release just in case it does. i hope my girlfriend never gets raped, but i bought her some pepper-spray that i encourage her to keep in her hand when she's walking alone at night to her car. i hope i never run out of gas on the highway, but i keep a spare gascan in my toolbox, just in case i do. i hope my computer is never hacked or infected with a virus, but i have protection software just in case. i hope my house is never filled with carbon monoxide, but i have a carbon monoxide detector just in case it does. i only use my cell phone, but i do keep a phone card in my wallet, just in case i lose my cell phone or it's not working, and i have to make a long distance call. i hope i never break down on the side of the road, but i keep a toolbox and flashlight in my car, just in case i do.

i could literally go on for paragraphs about this. i don't use any of these things (well, except maybe the computer virus protection), but most sane people wouldn't consider it "paranoid" or "weird" to purchase and own all these things.



[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2013 5:28:15 PM

People who purchase insurance want their losses reimbursed, people who wear condoms want to remain child-free or STD-free, and people who wear helmets want to avoid head injury.

Interestingly, the first example is one of assurance and the second two relate to prevention.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2013 5:38:08 PM

and lots of people who purchase guns want to either deter people from breaking into their house (if you catch them coming in a window and show them your gun, most would turn right around), or prevent the person from attacking them if they got in their home and they had a chance to get to the gun before the person got to them.

1/21/2013 5:42:06 PM

Or assure one's own safety.

However, with regard to a home invasion, there are means of deterring an intruder or protecting oneself other than possessing a firearm.

In the case of a disaster, one would need insurance for reimbursement of lost belongings; if one falls off of a bike, only a helmet would ensure no injury to the head.

With regard to impregnation, there's always the "pull n' pray" method, but that's not going to prevent the spread of STDs.

1/21/2013 6:00:19 PM

Quote :

"However, with regard to a home invasion, there are means of deterring an intruder or protecting oneself other than possessing a firearm."

what's as effective as a firearm in keeping someone out of your house, or keeping them from attacking you once they're already in your house? are you saying that since there are other ways, then a gun shouldn't be an option? again, keep in mind, i've stated that actually firing the gun would be the very last resort.

1/21/2013 6:28:40 PM

Quote :

"However, with regard to a home invasion, there are means of deterring an intruder or protecting oneself other than possessing a firearm. "

Please, do elaborate with examples and a compare/contrast on how other options of deterring an intruder and protecting oneself other than with a firearm may be more/less effective.

1/21/2013 6:52:27 PM

Quote :

"But I really don't understand why its so hard for gun owners to admit that it gives them wood to think about the situations that they would allow them to use their gun. That's why they got it, so why can't they just admit it? "

This is probably true.

1/21/2013 6:56:08 PM

No, I just wanted to counter your argument regarding the wants in some of those examples you provided earlier.

I can't say that I did a very good job of it. If I could put it another way:

In the case of a disaster, the loss of personal belongings isn't analogous to a home invasion; the disaster itself is analogous to the home invasion.

People don't want the disaster, and people don't want the home invasion; however, people most definitely do want their belongings reimbursed and their personal safety assured.


As for ^^^,
I think that a firearm would be more effective at protecting someone in the midst of a home invasion than it would at preventing its occurrence in the first place.

In the case of a home invasion, a gun-owner may want to shoot an intruder in order to survive; however, it's the survival that they desire, not the act of shooting.

To view it another way, a homeowner wants their possessions reimbursed; it's not the act of filing paperwork with an insurance agency that they desire.



^^
I never made any mention of the effectiveness of owning a gun versus any other means, only that there were other means.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2013 7:02:56 PM

Quote :

"I never made any mention of the effectiveness of owning a gun versus any other means, only that there were other means. "

I was asking to further the discussion to what those means are, how practicle they are, and their effectiveness in comparison to a firearm. I'm taking a "neutral" stance and take a look at all options on the table.

Quote :

"I think that a firearm would be more effective at protecting someone in the midst of a home invasion than it would at preventing its occurrence in the first place. "

I believe there is truth in this. At the same time, if a criminal could pick between two homes (knowing one has a homeowner with a gun and another without one), I'm sure the would-be intruder would pick the one that poses the least threat to his/her agenda. By lawfully taking a person's right to bear arms, or reduce it, the odds that an intruder enters a household with a firearm decreases. It's like a lottery for them and if they feel it's in their favor, a criminal will think little of turning away from that opportunity.

Anonymity is part of the defense.

[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2013 7:42:03 PM

SCOTUS says we have the right to defend ourselves with guns in our homes

next topic

1/21/2013 7:44:39 PM

just because the SCOTUS says so, doesn't mean we can't discuss it on a message board.

the SCOTUS says a lot of things that a lot of us don't agree with.

1/21/2013 7:50:40 PM

ok, rock on

1/21/2013 7:58:10 PM

Speaking of which my anti-gun friends on Facebook are now foaming at the mouth for Supreme Court retirements and a reexamination of DC vs Heller in the near future.

1/21/2013 10:30:41 PM

if it doesn't grant the right to defend yourself

and it doesn't grant militias the right to arms on-par with the government's arms

why the fuck was it written?



[Edited on January 21, 2013 at 10:37 PM. Reason : hunting with a rifle you check out from a sporting club, i guess lololol]

1/21/2013 10:36:42 PM