For those that are opposed to guns and want them banned and removed from homes. Would you put a sign in your yard or wear a button that proclaims you as being gun-free? Would you let everyone know that you do not have a gun in your home or on your person?
–
Pldennison writes:
quote:
It seems that Pldennison does not like my thoughts on the matter of having a gun in the home and the role that it plays in protection.
It seems that you make too many assumptions based on my questioning your idea of requiring non-gun-owners to place a sign on their homes advertising that fact. It was a stupid premise and I called you on it. Get over it. –
Based upon my above cut and paste, I never mentioned requiring non gun owners to put up signs. I asked if any of them would be willing to do so. Please do not change my words to make them fit your arguments.
Pldennison then writes:
You may own whatever weapon you think you need. I don’t care if you have a Sherman Tank for protection. If I am a criminal, I will simply case your home until you and your family leave, then rob you anyway.
I am not concerned about someone robbing my house when I am not home, that is one reason I have homeowner’s insurance. My reason to own a gun is to protect my family when we are home.
quote:
By the way, Pldennison, I will use whatever force neccessary to protect my family. This does include killing an intruder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- StrTrkr777
Pldennison writes:
I assume, then, that when he or she turns out to have been unarmed, you will be willing to pay the damages awarded his or her family in the inevitable civil lawsuit?
If someone enters my home to do my family harm or steal its possesions and does not have a weapon, then I am going to kick the crap out of them. If, however, they do have a weapon, I will blow their freakin’ head off. If I am arrested then so be it, I would rather die and protect my family than let someone harm them.
I also see that Pldennison did not want to comment on my statistics, but rather on my thoughts on the matter. Do you not believe the statistics Pldennison or since they disagree with your points do you choose to ignore them?
Neither. You don’t know what my complete opinion is on gun ownership and control, nor, I daresay, does anyone else on this board, because I judiciously avoid offering it. I began by addressing your preposterous proposal regarding placing signs on one’s home; you took it farther than that.
Can we have a list of what qualifies as a “weapon”? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr. Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
Great! After you’re arrested or dead, they’re there for the picking! Bwaaaahahahahah!
Phil - In GA, where both I and StrTrkr live (the reference to Neal Boortz was a dead giveaway), the law is written (interpreted?) so that one doesn’t have to determine whether a home intruder is armed. Should you catch someone who has broken into your home, you may presume they intend to harm or kill you and may defend yourself accordingly. This has been consistently been upheld in court. The (only slightly) tongue in cheek interpretation is “If you shoot someone on your doorstep, whether or not you go to jail depends on which way they fall.” As you indicated, though, it does not preclude a wrongful death civil suit.
Another “fun fact” not truly intended to clarify anything.
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik
If someone enters my home to do my family harm or steal its possesions and does not have a weapon, then I am going to kick the crap out of them. If, however, they do have a weapon, I will blow their freakin’ head off.
Pldennison writes:
Can we have a list of what qualifies as a “weapon”? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr. Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
A weapon is anything that an intruder might use to do me or may family harm. I will not hesitate to use deadly force in protection of my family.
quote:
If I am arrested then so be it, I would rather die and protect my family than let someone harm them.
Pldennison writes:
Great! After you’re arrested or dead, they’re there for the picking! Bwaaaahahahahah!
I feel sorry for your family if you would not choose to die to protect them. If someone enters my house intent to do harm to my family, I will shoot first and worry about the legal consequences later.
In your past messages you have referred to my proposal as preposterous and stupid. I thought this was a message board of intellectual discusion, but in my experience when one uses the word stupid to refer to an idea, it is usually out of being able to discuss the idea logically and rationally.
My point was if I believe in my country I would have no hessitation in putting a flag in front of my house, if I believe in Christ I have no problem in wearing a cross. If I believe in a cause then I promote it by showing my support for it. So if I believed that ordinary citizens should not have guns then I should show my support by stating publically that I am gun free.
As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that you do not own a gun, then why don’t you post such a sign and then let us know what happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)
Forget legal justification.
Forget moral justification.
According to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, guns kept in the home for protection are forty-three times more likely to kill a family member than an assailant.
How can you MENTALLY justify having a gun in the home?
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
The actual statistic is “more likely to kill a friend, family member, or acquaintance than to kill an intruder”. There were 9 justifiable homicides, divided by 12 accidents, 42 criminal homicides, and 333 suicides (“family member”).
The “acquaintance” category includes such people as rival drug dealers. Obviously, the predominant statistic here is that a gun is a very popular instrument for suicide.
Aside from this, unless it has been a lifelong dream of yours to kill an intruder, the statistic is not very meaningful since it counts only KILLING intruders. Using a gun to only wound or even discourage an attacker gets you no credit with the New England Journal of Medicine.
A guy who lived next door to me, when I lived in Bakersfield, once threatened to blow my head off because I didn’t own a gun.
I promise, that’s all there was to it. We weren’t argueing or even unfriendly towards each other before this. Just civil.
Blow by blow;
I came out of my apt. and he was standing there playing with a pistol. I kind of ignored him and headed to my car.
He says “Hey, George, bet you wish you had one of these.”
Me; “I’ve never felt the need to own a gun, Nathan”
He; “I’ll blow your fuckin head of, man. Then we’ll see who needs a gun.”
I got in my car and left.
What does mean? Probably nothing.
But I did feel sorry for his family.
Peace,
mangeorge
Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! Source???
That’s what I thought. It appears that for every responsible and intelligent gun owner, there are five guys just waiting for someone to break in to their house so they can shoot them. Few things entertain me more than when one of these self-styled Charles Bronsons gets shot with his own gun.
What good am I to my wife if I’m dead?
If you can come up with one single post anywhere where I have stated that ordinary citizens do not and should not have the right to own guns, I will instantly send you a check for $100. And you’re gonna have a tought time, because in two other threads, I have vehemently defended the idea that the 2nd Amendment confers such a right on all the people. I choose not to exercise it.
Better idea–why don’t I just rob your home despite your guns?
Oh, yes, BTW, I also never asserted that the gun was not a deterrent, merely that most criminals will decide what homes to enter and which not to based primarily on the likelihood of the occupants being at home.
Furthermore, if I am smart enough to come up with the idea of putting a sign on my home that says I have a gun, whether I do or don’t, I’m sure that people much smarter than I am have thought of the same thing. The same people smart enought to put up signs about dogs and alarm systems, most likely.
Finally, if I were a criminal, and I did have a gun, and you confronted me with your own, you have to assume I know how to use mine at least as well as you do. Ergo, I, the criminal, would probably simply shoot you first.
I didn’t read every post on this thread ( I don’t have that much time) but here are my thoughts…
I think the intent of gun control laws should be to keep guns out of the reach of children. People can say that we should focus on why kids are angry and all that. But we know that if kids didn’t have guns, they would invariably vent their anger in a safer way (no weapon is more dangerous than a gun) that would kill a lot less people, if any at all.
Is the solution the banning of all guns? No, of course not. When the criminals have guns, that’s not exactly fair. But there is no reason for any civillian to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. The risks far outweigh the benefits. I don’t see a huge problem with concealed weapons, because the people who do are well-tested, mentally and physically first. They shouldn’t be in places where lots of children will be exposed to them though, i.e. schools.
Everyone who loves guns talks about the sanctity of the second amendment… well I have an idea… AMEND the second amendment. We’ve amended and repealed other amendments, and the 2nd isn’t immune to this. My proposed amendment:
“Amendment XXVII: The right of every citizen of the United States ,not convicted by the federal or state government of a firearm felony and above 21 years of age, to possess a single manual-fire arm shall not be infringed upon. However, the states may ban a person from possessing firearms if that person is determined to be mentally unsound.”
It needs a little work, but this would sufficiently allow Congress to make laws banning possession of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, make exemptions for hunters and collectors, etc.
Can we have a list of what qualifies as a “weapon”? I bet your list is real flexible, Mr.
Itchy-Trigger-Finger, and probably includes crowbars, lockpicks and screwdrivers.
A weapon is anything that an intruder might use to do me or may family harm. I will not
hesitate to use deadly force in protection of my family.
Pldenison writes:
That’s what I thought. It appears that for every responsible and intelligent gun owner, there are five guys just waiting for someone to break in to their house so they can shoot them. Few things entertain me more than when one of these self-styled Charles Bronsons gets shot with his own gun.
I do not sit around waiting for someone to break into my house so that I can shoot them. If I wanted that I would post the no gun sign to try to lure someone in. My statement is that if someone ever does break into my house, and I hope it never happens, I am prepared to use whatever force necessary.
quote:
I feel sorry for your family if you would not choose to die to protect them.
Pldennison writes:
What good am I to my wife if I’m dead?
What good are you to your wife if you are sitting back while she is raped or killed?
quote:
As for you ascertion that the gun is not a deterant, and since you have stated that
you do not own a gun, then why don’t you post such a sign and then let us know what
happens. (If the idea is so stupid.)
Pldennison writes:
Better idea–why don’t I just rob your home despite your guns?
Fine by me. However, bring a weapon and face the consequences. Leave your weapon at home and I’ll have a good time beating you till the police arrive. (I hope it takes them a while.)
…snip… Everyone who loves guns talks about the sanctity of the second amendment… well I have an idea… AMEND the second amendment. We’ve amended and repealed other amendments, and the 2nd isn’t immune to this. My proposed amendment:
"Amendment XXVII: The right of every citizen of the United States ,not convicted by the federal or state government of a firearm felony and above 21 years of age, to possess a single manual-fire arm shall not be infringed upon. …snip…
Why the age of 21? Men are old enough to register for the draft at 18. In the military 18 year olds are given guns. So if someone has a house and a family but is not 21, they should still be denied a gun? Why not 18? Why not 25? If we are arbitrarily going to pick an age, why 21? I remember when I was 21, I was more mature than at 18 but much less than at 25 and much much less than at 30 and above.
In the case of the Columbine shooting, the guys were not of legal age to buy guns so they got friends who were. If you set the age at 21 there is nothing stopping them from getting an older person to buy the guns.
Why don’t we blame the people pulling the triggers and not the law abidding gun owners or the guns themselves?
Jeffery T.
Gun related quotes from Neal Boortz’s web site.
“An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.”
“A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.”
“Smith & Wesson!! The original point & click interface.”
“If guns cause crime then pencils must cause misspelled words.”
“If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.”
“Those who trade liberty for security, have neither.”
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed on’ don’t you understand?”
“The second Amendment is in place in case they ignore all the others.”
“64,999,987 Firearms owners killed no one yesterday”
“This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”
That last quotation? Actually, it was some character named Adolf Hitler. He said it in 1935 after Germany instituted strict gun control laws. When they came for the Jews, the Jews were unarmed.
Your logic escapes me, I’m afraid. The root of the problem, as it appears to me, is people’s lack of respect for the lives of others. To suggest a “less deadly” approach is absurd. Would you rather they choked each other? Pipe bombs, perhaps?
A responsible individual knows full well the harm a gun can inflict. A responsible individual with a gun is no more dangerous than an irresponsible individual without one.
You got from “they” to “you” very quickly. I notice you backed off on your assertion that I don’t believe in the right to gun ownership by private citizens. Or you still want a chance to be wrong about something else later?
So, now we’ve gone from burglary to raping and killing. Wow, if you change the circumstances, you can win any argument!!
Of course, you wouldn’t be home at the time of the robbery, so your moronic statements here are for naught, although they put the lie to your claim above that you aren’t just waiting eagerly for someone to try. You sound like a violent person, frankly. In any case, if you are home, I will simply shoot you before conducting the robbery.
I will admit that you never said you were against gun ownership. I mistook what you stated earlier and I was wrong.
Well if someone comes into my house while I am home I am not going to just let them rob me until they threaten me or my family and then act. I will take necessary action.
If someone is breaking in and they have a gun and they are going to plan to shoot anyone on sight, then if I take no action I am dead and they can do what they like to my family. If I take action, I may still be dead but maybe they are too.
You have called my statements stupid, perposterous, and now moronic. You also say that I sound like a violent person. I am not. I have never been in a fight, I have never shot anyone, I have never acted in violence to anyone. By your same ascertions, since you choose to attack my words and call them stupid, but choose not to debate my points or my statistics, I say that you sound like a liberal. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong.
Also, considering you have “threatened” me by saying that you will rob my home and now that you will shoot me if I am at home, it sounds like you are the violent person and my actions would be justified.
Since I know the layout of my home even in the dark, I believe I will have the edge over you.
That’s not what Phil’s trying to say.
He’s saying that if any given burglar is already pre-disposed to armed robbery and is serious about not getting caught, all your preparation will be for naught.
But the smart burglar will wait until you are not home to rob you; in which case, all your preparation is for naught.
Typically, in a dark room in the middle of the night, with nothing much more to go on than a vague silhouette, by the time you can ascertain whether or not the intruder is armed, he may have already fired and killed you.
Your logical response to any intruder, by your own words, is to shoot first.
However, this leaves you criminally liable in some states, and civilly liable in most states.
The use of deadly force (and any use of a firearm other than throwing it at an intruder is deadly force) should never be taken lightly, or without serious forethought.
And if you are ever going to point a gun at an intruder or attacker, and you aren’t willing or able to make good on the threat, then your own gun is more dangerous to you than the intruder.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT> “He was shot with his own gun? How embarassing.”
I must take issue with the theory that no lives are saved by private gun ownership in the USA. Without the freedom to develop science, medecine, and technology that our arms ensure, millions would have died and Billions would never have been born.
I agree with your last post, ExTank, but consider the flip side of the equation.
There’s a rather strident and overreaching pro-gun activist on the web (I’ve lost the URL, so I’m paraphrasing) who claims the following “argument” is incontestable justification for keeping a gun in the house…
He says that anyone who is opposed to private gun ownership or thinks it is unnecessary or unjustifiable should place a sign on their home that proclaims: “There are no guns in this household”. The author contends that this would make you a prime candidate for armed robbery and the like, proving (in his mind, anyway) that arming oneself is simple common sense.
But I wonder…
It seems to me that the best strategy for an armed intruder in a home where he can’t be sure the residents are unarmed would be to shoot anything that moves before he himself can be shot. After all, a criminal would by definition be less concerned about the legal niceties involved and most of them are sure they won’t be caught anyway. If I were such a criminal, I’d probably be strongly disposed to shooting first, rendering the homeowner’s weapons completely moot.
This situation is roughly analogous to Cold War nuclear brinkmanship, where a first strike is clearly the best strategy if there’s a reasonable chance you can get them and their ability to retaliate before they do the same to you.
Putting up the sign in question might theoretically increase the risk to your property, but I contend it might also greatly reduce the risks to you and your family!