“You can’t bring a gun unless you bring one for everyone!!!”
I get what you’re saying. If someone thinks I’m some sort of pussy, they can just keep out. Respect and all that.
Like I said earlier, I’m not anti-gun at all. All my posts on the subject have always fallen into the “right to bear arms” camp. Still, it’s my house and my rules. What are these guys defending against? If I invite someone to dinner, it isn’t like I’m gonna go all Doctor Lector on them :eek: What are these guys defending against? Me???
I’m not that scary.
Well, you did invite them to dinner.
With some fava beans and a nice chianti 
For anything up to a full-scale, invite the whole damn town BBQ, I can do that.
-
It would not solve just “some of the problems”, it would solve all the problems discussed on this thread and a sign would satisfy everyone. I hope you realize that the sign is not for “ME” personally, because “I” am never coming to your house. The sign is for everyone and anyone else, that is the beauty of it. The sign is for the other 6 billion people on this planet, now, tomorrow, next year, and forever more, and with one little sign you can accomplish so much.
-
Why would you expect, or allow law enforcement, i.e. someone who has a job for the local government with probably just an associates degree, to bring a gun into your house buy not a surgeon or a nurse or a church minister? Do you think cops are gods who are no longer human? Dont you know that cops shoot more innocent bystanders than civilian CCW holders? You might want to re-think that. If you trust an average cop, and yet not trust your doctor or your nurse, then you have not thought this thru very well.
-
How do you know if you didnt try. For all you know, the homeowners association will be giddy in approval and want to put up similar signs all over the neighborhood. The last time I lived in a subdivision, we had a bunch of signs, including a lot of NO TRASSPASSING signs, RESIDENTS ONLY signs, NO LIFEGUARD signs, NO PEDDLERS signs, etc. (which is similar to what we are talking about)
-
You want me to blight my front yard to keep the rare (where I live) person with a gun out? How about we make it that everyone should leave their gun in the car unless you have a sign in your front yard stating people with guns are welcome in your home? That would solve the issue as well.
-
I would not want an off-duty cop bringing their gun in my home either. I do not want guns in my house. Period. If they are there in an official capacity then it really is not my choice anymore. My point is in Chicago the only people legally allowed to have a handgun would be law enforcement (not sure if they are allowed to carry when off duty but I suspect they can). That may change soon for the public but it is currently the law. As such I would not expect anyone to be carrying a gun in my home such that it would merit a sign to stop them (if you came to my home with a handgun you would be breaking the law). May as well put a sign saying no heroin, no PCP, no crack, no lions, no buffalo and so on in my front yard.
-
I’ll wager you do not know my homeowners association (HOA) so you will have to take my word for it that they would not be keen on the sign you suggest. I also have lived other places with a HOA and the same thing (they got bent out of shape if you put a wreath on your door during Christmas). I also know the experiences of my family who together have dealt with well over a dozen HOA combined. I guarantee no go there either. I suspect you have never dealt with one else you would not say that except to be a pain. And again, I also wonder if there are city ordinances about this. I have not looked but it would not surprise me if signs in your front yard were restricted by law.
Even if we suppose my HOA would be cool with such a sign you would have to agree some would not. So what do those people do where the HOA prevents this?
[quote=“Zeriel, post:535, topic:518226”]
Counterpoint–I judge that Michael Phelps is a significantly better swimmer than I am. In the generic case where you know nothing of a person, certainly you can judge them as harshly as necessary, but by no means is it implied that “I would probably do thing A, therefore everyone would.”
Of course, Scumpup’s also responding to
which I’d hope you could agree is so over the top that it deserves the sort of abrupt dismissal that it was given.
[QUOTE]
Not that I think everyone would, but enough so that I would rather not have concealed weapons being carried around. I would actually dare anyone to say incontrovertibly that its impossible for them to get angry enough to shoot someone should they have a weapon to hand.
For scumpup’s comment - it doesn’t take into account varying degrees of angry.
But being quite striaght forward - how long does it take to pull out a gun and shoot someone? Is that easier or harder than going and finding a baseball to bludgeon someone with?
And finally, a very straight forward question - if (and please go with the hypothetical) criminals could not get hand-guns, would you still feel the need to carry one?
You’re absolutely spot-on, Blake!! This:
seriously underscores why firearms really don’t belong in civilians hands (and why I’m not a fan of guns being in civilian hands, either), and why some sort of comprehensive gun control program(s) is/are needed.
Most of the 6 billion people on the planet do not carry firearms. Why should I put up a sign to placate a small minority?
I don’t want people bringing crack, children or porn into my house either (well, maybe porn). Should I put up a sign warning them about that too?
A) Are you going to answer my question upthread? Why does my landlord live, despite me being angry with him and armed? I mean, we’ve had yelling arguments in my living room, with my shotgun ten feet away.
B) I guarantee you I practice more with my firearms than any police officer in my town–my father in law pals around with the chief, y’see, and I ask these questions and go shooting with some of the guys. The better answer to Blake’s statement, in my opinion, is that anyone who has a gun ought to be well-trained in the safe operation and storage thereof–and as a gun rights advocate, I’m perfectly happy with a well-designed skills test for firearms licensing, said test (especially for handguns in self-defense calibers (as opposed to, say, hiking-in-bear-country calibers)) to include making good shoot/no-shoot decisions under conditions of stress.
It would depend a lot on the situation, to be honest.
I don’t even own a handgun right this particular moment, despite still maintaining my CCW, because my neighborhood and town are very very safe and I don’t feel like the risks that carrying generates outweighs the risks that carrying prevents. Most criminals here DON’T have guns, and most criminals here are in fact drunks and college kids. Sure, there have been incidents of gun crime–the first college shooting I was ever aware of happened here a year or so before I started, and the shooter (with a rifle, looking the wrong way) was tackled by someone who was unarmed from the blind side–but I don’t like being the guy who says “if someone there had been armed…” because that’s just not worth speculating about, once you get into the whole “…and well trained, and not tired or tipsy or off their game, etc…” part of it.
To go with the hypothetical, if all criminals were somehow magically prevented from having guns, I’d consider downgrading to mace/pepper spray, but there comes a point where, in my mind, even if they don’t have guns they might well have knives, lengths of pipe, or the time to go to the gym and karate practice more than I do–and a firearm is an equalizer for that kind of thing, as it depends so little on the physical attributes of the wielder. The downside is that it equalizes things for the criminal as well, of course.
To tie what you’re saying to what independentminded was saying, though, there is almost no justification in my mind for banning hunting/sporting long arms.
Why are you so hung up on being a snark about this? When someone says “don’t bring a gun into my house, please” because they’re afraid of it, so what? I ask people not to give themselves shots in front of me (diabetic friends) because I’m phobic of needles–it does not matter if the fear or dislike is rational or not, it’s THEIR house and property rights are significantly more important than gun rights to a free society.
Frankly the suggestion that someone should put up what amounts to a “hey, I can’t defend myself against certain types of home invasion!” sign is asinine. Get a small safe for your car, bolt it to the trunk floor, put your gun in there when you visit, and move on with your life.
I see. What other points of the Bill of Rights do you seemingly not agree with too? And just the fact that you want the government to be the only one with firearms is what’s really disturbing and sad. :rolleyes:
Also, your claim that angry people who have access with a gun end up using the gun is absolutely, 100% idiotic. I can’t believe you’re seriously trying to use that as a legitimate argument.
It’s absolutely, 100% logical. That is not to say that those same angry people might not otherwise just pick up a kitchen knife or something, but you are apparently arguing that crimes of passion do not occur, or possibly that they never involve guns.
That aside, there are plenty of gun control threads, and no reason to turn this into one - looking at you here, independentminded.
Independentminded’s logic insinuates that the 80 million gun owners in the US must be some of the most happy-go-luckiest mofo’s out there or else we’d be swimming in the blood bath.
Not really. He’s just insinuating that people with guns are more likely to kill than people without them.
Of course they happen. They also happen with knives, cars, ropes/cords, bricks, and an assortment of other stuff. To say that people who are mad somehow act out more when they have access to a gun is a claim that requires substantiation, because it’s an absurd statement to say that normal people who get angry magically turn into murderers just because a gun is available.
Magically no but having a gun around is more likely to be used in a murder than anything else by a big margin.
Your cite may just prove that when you grab the brick or rope it’s not as effective of a crime-of-passion murder weapon as a gun. If you don’t manage to kill them, then it’s not a murder.
Whether that damages your argument or not will depend on the opinions of the reader.
Your link doesn’t work, but your stats read that more people are killed with guns than anything else. Not that having a gun around makes murder more likely.