While this is all true, to me it’s even more basic: my home is where I get to let my guard down. My home is where I don’t have to keep my guard up to protect my family from violence or corruption or perversion or other harm. My home if the one environment that I get to construct so as to make it secure.
While crack or paedophiles or armed people on my home are objectively no more dangerous than the ones outside, their presence means I need to be just as vigilant in my house as I am on the street. That I can’t relax.
Given that the gun toters are the ones telling me that there is a vital need to be not just vigilante, but prepared to use lethal force, out on the street, I can’t believe they don’t get this.
There are risks I am forced to take out in public. I am under no obligation to allow the same risks into my house.
The problem here is not the gun, but the problem is in the first place allowing someone who might be mentally ill to be in your home and around your children.
There are a hundred different ways a mentally ill person can harm you or your kids, or otherwise spoil a family holiday.
I think the home owner is just as crazy and should be avoided. Like I said earlier, I would not trust a homeowner who invites people like this to eat with me.
Furthermore, the kind of ill informed or naive person who would not allow a responsible CCW licensed person, or an off duty police officer to come share a meal, is not the kind of person who you want to be around anyways.
This woman who invited this crazy uncle, is going to put not only her own family in danger, but all of the other guests who are invited. With the full knowlege that the crazy uncle, who cannot be trusted is going to be there, she is requiring that all of the other of her guests(licensed CCW holders, police officers, etc.) be unarmed and defenseless.
Logic and ethics dictate that any homeowner, or business, who prohibits people/guests from exercising self defense, automatically and necessarily assumes the full responsiblity for their complete and total protection.
I will give 10 - 1 odds that this homeowner is NOT providing full adequate alternative protection. …and to me, that is not only rude, but utterly and completely irresponsible.
Exactly how does this homeowner word her invitations?
*"HI, I am having Thanksgiving dinner, can you come? One of the guests who will be there and who I dont know very well, will be a crazy uncle who I really dont want to have any contact with, who we do not trust him at all, he sometimes carries a gun although we asked him not to this time, he is anti-social and let me tell you… truthfully… he scares me!!!
Anywho…can you guys come and join us and this crazy person for dinner?..and by the way, one more thing, all the other guests , including your police officer husband, MUST come completely defenseless and unarmed". Okay?"
*
As homeowner, if you prohibit guests from defending themselves, then YOU automatically assume full and complete responsiblity for their protection.
YOu cannot let your guard down.
YOu become obligated to provide alternaltive complete protection.
Anyone who deliberately and knowingly prevents someone else from defending themselves - without completely and totally providing full alternative protection is not someone to ever be associated with.
I would never, ever, associate with someone who does that.
Exactly how does this homeowner word her invitations?
*“HI, I am having Thanksgiving dinner, can you come? One of the guests who will be there and who I dont know very well, will be a crazy uncle who I really dont want to have any contact with, who we do not trust him at all, he sometimes carries a gun although we asked him not to this time, he is anti-social and let me tell you… truthfully… he scares me!!!
Anywho…can you guys come and join us and this crazy person for dinner?..and by the way, one more thing, all the other guests , including your police officer husband, MUST come completely defenseless and unarmed”. Okay?" *
Much wittier response, but this is my question exactly. What sort of neighbourhood do you think I live in?
The risk from a carried firearm is considered negligible, but the risk of someone kicking down the door of a crowded, well lit, occupied house with the intent of murdering my guests is so significant I’m obliged to stand guard out front with a grenade launcher.
It does not matter where, if you remove another persons means of self defense, then you completely and totally assume responsiblity for their complete protection. The homeowner has 24-7 responsibility to completely protect all of his guests.
(Not unlike when a police officer arrests you, disarms you, and then cuffs you - the police officer then is completely responsible for your safety)
So by this argument you allow all your guests to dope up on speed and/or PCP in your house if they wish? After all if you prevent them from doing so without completely and totally providing full alternative protection you’re a disgrace.
What exactly do you think you’re going to have to defend yourself against at Thanksgiving dinner? Do you think the turkey is going to leap off the platter and attack you?
The letter-writer doesn’t say the uncle is mentally ill, and she doesn’t say anything about having children. She describes the uncle as displaying “antisocial behavior”, but since the term “antisocial” can be used in both a clinical sense and also to just mean someone who is unsociable it’s unclear whether the letter-writer believes the uncle is mentally ill or not. If he had to her knowledge been diagnosed with a mental illness she probably would have mentioned this in her letter.
*Did you actually read the letter? This woman didn’t invite her boyfriend’s uncle. She invited her boyfriend’s parents, and his father invited the uncle. The letter-writer says she hadn’t planned on having the uncle there at all.
*The letter doesn’t say anything about responsible CCW licensed people or off-duty police officers. She says she doesn’t want her boyfriend’s uncle to bring his gun to the party.
*I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that licensed CCW holders and police officers are invited to this party, because there’s nothing about that in the letter. It’s also not clear whether the letter-writer wants a total weapons ban in her home or if it’s specifically this uncle being armed that she objects to. She wants the uncle to be told “weapons of any kind will not be allowed into our home”, but given the context she may mean that “weapons of any kind will not be allowed into our home if you’re the one bringing them.”
*I don’t think this woman is obligated to completely and totally protect her guests under any circumstances, because that’s a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to. What is she supposed to do, hire a private security team? Wrap everyone in bubble wrap? As long as she’s following basic home safety practices then I think she’s fulfilled her obligation to her guests if she makes sure that the creepy uncle either isn’t armed or isn’t present at the party.
I’m not sure what you think is likely to happen at a Thanksgiving dinner that would necessitate the presence of armed police officers or CCW holders, but at all the Thanksgiving parties I’ve ever been to the biggest danger was overeating. I’d be more worried about food poisoning, kitchen accidents, or someone tripping and falling than I would about the possibility of some incident requiring an armed response.
Do you really need to drag people to your dinner parties in manacles and then force them to remain?
If not then his comparison is total nonsense.
I’m not disarming anybody, I’m setting standards of behaviour to be followed in my own home. If anyone feels those standards are to onerous for whatever reason they are free to leave.
Let me assure you, the last thing I want to do is disarm someone and then have to store their weapon.
Of course there is some risk. There is risk associated with everything. There’s risk associated with wearing flip-flops. There’s risk associated with taking a shower during a storm. The real question is how much risk. And once again, I’m stating that a concealed weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner has a level of risk that’s small enough to not get worked up about. I’d be more worried about my Thanksgiving guests drinking too much wine then attempting to drive home.
I didn’t see where they literally said there was 0 risk, but then again, nothing has zero risk. The point I’m making is that the risk is so minuscule it’s ridiculous to get worked up over it.
I don’t want to go back and identify every single post, but generally it’s the posts that are coming up with outlandish scenarios of somehow a guest or kid obtaining the concealed firearm and general havoc resulting from someone simply carrying a gun (that nobody would know about) is what is overstating the risk/danger of a gun. Yes there is risk, but not enough to get angry or nervous about. A gun doesn’t have a mind of its own, it’s a machine that depends on its owner’s input to operate. Barring the fact that the person carrying the gun would have some kind of mental defect, I can’t imagine a scenario where a concealed weapon that no one knows about is going to cause any kind of significant risk to the house’s inhabitants. Just saying “I don’t like guns, so no guns in my house” is not rational becuase there’s no reason to be so terrified or indifferent toward an inanimate object. If you say you don’t want them because they’re dangerous, at least that’s a reason (even though it’s a dumb reason).
Really? I mean, we live in an age with policemen and 911. This isn’t the 17th century where there is no centralized police and highwaymen and marauders roam the land. What exactly do we need guns to protect us from?
Ummm, Did you actually read YOUR own post, or are you changing what you so very clearly previously said? If YOUR post, post 286, what YOU wrote, is incorrect, then please correct it. I can only respond to what YOU clearly said. If you want to change what you said, then please make it clear what you are changing.
In post 286 YOU are the one who brought up the possibility of being MENTALLY ILL
In post 286 YOU are the one who said she is SCARED
In post 286 YOu are the one who brought up her “FAMILY”
So you get to decide what risks I am forced to accept in my own home? Is that it?
To help you out:
Now having seen that, do you or do you not agree with the statement that carrying a firearm presents zero risk?
What gives you the right to decide that for me?
Why don’t I get to decide that the risk of you requiring a firearm at dinner party is so miniscule it’s ridiculous to get worked up over it?
How precisely is that outlandish? Do you dispute that kids have obtained concealed firearms in the past? Or are you also claiming there is absolutely no chance it could happen to you because you are infallible?
First off, who’s getting angry about the risks? The only person getting angry is Dio, and that anger is directed at people lying to him, not at any risk. Once agian you seem to be arguing against position that nobody here holds.
And secondly what the hell gives you the right to tell me what I should be nervous about?
Why don’t I get to decide that the risk of you being injured because you were unarmed at a freakin’ dinner party is not worth getting angry about?
Again, please point to someone in this thread who said otherwise.
The fact that you can’t is truly terrifying to me. Probably even more terrifying than the fact that you are apparently totally ignorant of the fact that concealed weapons that no one knew have posed significant risks in the past.
Who in this thread is terrified?
And saying that there’s no reason to be indifferent toward an inanimate object is ridiculous. What other response is appropriate to an inanimate object? Should we all feel love for guns?
Your entire position here is a combination of strawmen and an assumption that you have the right to decide for me what risks I should be forced to take and what I should be wary of in my own home.
As I recall, you also believe a gun club is the best place on earth to find a date… so it’s possible your attitude to guns is not, shall we say… normal.
