I don’t care about any of these hypotheticals if someone is trying to open my door here, in this reality we live in, all I know or care about is “there’s someone trying to enter my house who should not be doing so.”
It did not play any role in this scenario, other than my saying that I had it may have served as a motivation for her getting away from my door, which is the only thing I was trying to do at that time. “Repelling the intruders” doesn’t really apply to what happened, in hindsight, but you only get hindsight after an event takes place, which anyone surely knows.
What I posted is only relevant to the thread insomuch as it got me thinking about how the situation could have gone down if it was in fact someone trying to break into the house and potentially hurt me. I’m glad what happened did not go any further than it did…I don’t like to think about having to hurt anyone or get hurt myself, it’s something I hope does not happen, but I feel that having a weapon gives me better odds if it ever does.
Even so, it would be a measure of last resort.
I have no idea what others may think, some of them probably would…I think there’s a problem with overpolicing though, especially as police use of force seems to be disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. In some ideal world where all police were properly trained, incorruptible, and not capable of doing some of the horrific things that we have seen police officers do (despite the presence of body and dash cameras) - I am ambivalent, to say the least, about the idea of putting more police on the streets.
Yeah, two people said they had dogs on the first page, eons ago. One person said he might get a alarm, another said a alarm could be a good idea, one of the people who said he had dogs suggested others get a dog, one said he had steel doors and alarms- and another suggested a type of alarm. You just searched for “dog” and alarm" without actually reading the posts. :rolleyes: Exactly one person said he had a alarm.
That’s not that thread. This thread isnt another “gun control good or bad” thread, and I resnet this, your fifth? Sixth? attempt to hijack it into one.
And who is “my crowd”? Do you know anything about “my crowd”? You clearly think I am a NRA member or something, or a gun nut. I own a .22 rifle my dad gave me when I was a kid, and my old service pistol. I am a retired fed. I do support the 2nd Ad- because I support the whole Bill or Rights, but I have always been a proponent of responsible gun ownership (if that is what is right for you) and and effective and constitutional- controls on guns.
In that particular incident, it wouldn’t have. He had no way of knowing that in advance, though; a fact of which you were very well aware before you posted.
We have no way of knowing much of anything in advance when it comes to life. Ghod knows what could have happened if that drunk woman had wandered into the wrong house and no one had a firearm to shoot her.
I think you’re misrepresenting the situation a bit. Nobody wandered into my house. My doors were locked. If my doors weren’t locked and a drunk woman wandered into my house, I think I could get her out without having to use a weapon.
Yes, the second amendment arms criminals. It armed criminals back then, and it arms criminals today.
I have an idea, please explain to me how it doesn’t arm criminals. How is it even possible to have a society where handguns are widely available in retail stores, yet those guns don’t find their way into criminal hands? What realistic collection of laws and law enforcement techniques could make that happen?
Please, when you educate us with your brilliance, don’t forget the gun lover’s anti-gun-law mantra “criminals don’t follow the law”.
I’d give them that benefit of the doubt if it were not for the fact that they insist that any attempts at preventing criminals from being armed is a desire on our part to deprive law abiding americans the ability to defend themselves, and the rest of the BS that is thrown in about how many will have to die in order to advance any gun control at all.
OTOH, given that in this very thread, it has been mentioned on several occasions that you cannot protect yourself from someone with a gun without a gun yourself, I do not actually put it past many to be for the arming of criminals, as, if criminals are armed, that gives them an excuse to be armed as well.
My point was more that, being at that time, were it an actual break in, most home owners would have found out about it in the morning when they wake up and find their stuff missing.
Fair enough, you were scared of this drunk confused woman who ended up at your door at 2 AM, and that reinforces the security that you feel your gun provides you.
Several years back, my neighbors had a big party. When I got up, there was someone asleep on the couch. I figured it was one of my roommates’ friends. Later, when I talked to them, we found that it was none of our friends, just a random drunk guy that wandered into the wrong house late at night.
I’m all for better training and better community relations. Having a cop actually walking a beat would deter much more crime than sleeping with a gun under your pillow.
Okay, and so is that different from when you said that no one had said anything abut alarms or dogs or plans?
Also, I was only responding in that post to your claim that no one had mentioned alarms or dogs. There were several others that actually said what they would do, whether it be to leave or to confront them with a weapon.
That those “plans” did not meet your approval did not mean that there were not plans. If you were trying to be productive, you would give constructive criticism of the plans, rather than dismissing them as you have done.
Now, there have not been that many after it was made obvious that the only reason to ask for plans was to ridicule them for not having a gun. Did you really expect people to continue to take the OP seriously after that?
If you want to talk plans, then tell me what your plan is for when a dozen heavily armed gang members invade your house. And don’t say that it’s not likely, as neither is the OP’s hypothetical, nor your constant modifications to it.
You just made that accusation up with no justification or reason whatsoever. While it is true that I did do a search for dogs and alarms (which is something that you couldn’t be bothered to do before making your claim that no one had mentioned them), I did in fact read the posts, as there were many other mentions of dogs and alarms that were not relevant, and so I only listed the posts that actually advocated for such. I take it that you do not consider someone recommending an alarm to be saying that they have an alarm, but I consider that to be extremely motivated reasoning on your part.
You made a claim, that claim was shown to be counterfactual. Whining that I called you on it doesn’t change that.
You have obviously not been following this thread if you think that is the case. I didn’t make it a “gun control good or bad”, the OP made it a “gun control bad.” Even with that well poisoning in the first place, many still responded in good faith, to have their replies ridiculed with “BANG your dead!” as the response.
The pro-gun contingent has been trying to claim that nothing short of a gun will protect you.
While you may want to turn it into a gun control thread, it is not, it is a pros and cons of guns in the house thread. the gun control aspect only comes up as an aspect of the defense, in that the main reason why you would need a gun for self protection is if the invader has a gun.
Should I be resentful that this was just meant to be yet another gun worshipping thread? Your fifth or sixth one?
[/quote]
And who is “my crowd”? Do you know anything about “my crowd”?
[/quote]
I know that you advocate for policies that will make it easier for criminals to arm themselves, and that is all I need for this thread.
Sure, we could toss out the whole Bill of Rights- the 5th and 8th have let many guilty men free, the 1st is likely guilty of most school shootings (a noted expert dud a study where it was shown that media attention on school shootings made them common), you can buy a copy of the Anarchists cookbook and blow shit up, etc. etc.
With every Right comes problems. I’d rather have the Rights. Ben Franklin: “*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” *
And of course, murders still happen without guns, not to mention it isnt all that hard to make a makeshift gun. GB, with strong gun controls has had to put in place new laws banning types of knives as murder by stabbings have increased. Hell, you can kill a man with a hammer.
Several times a hour a plane leaves America for nations without those rights. You could be on one tomorrow.
Alternatively, we could take a more nuanced view to whether it would be prudent to amend the bill of rights than “Accept it all or burn the entire country to the ground”.
If somebody is sufficiently determined to do something there’s no way to guarantee they will fail. This is a stupid reason not to try.
I’m of the opinion that having guns kept in poorly-defended gun shops and department stores (and the supply warehouses for such places) cannot help but make it easier to illegally get a hold of them than if they were only to be found in the possession of swat teams and the military, and in carefully monitored manufacturing facilities that served only such organizations.
Plus, YOU owning a gun makes it easier for criminals to get guns - guns stored in private residences have got to be easier to illegally get a hold of than ones stored in guarded armories. And before you argue that your personally-owned guns are locked up more securely than fort knox, not all of your neighbor’s guns are so carefully monitored.
And there is no reason to work to make any improvements to any of that, right? It was written in stone, with no room for change or interpretation?
Are you one of those that believe that 2A was written with the idea of prohibiting states from regulating guns?
But that is all harder than going to your local gun shop (or your local black market dealer, if you want it cheaper).
And there are planes leaving for places where your gun would actually be useful.
I know that you advocate for policies that will make it easier for criminals to arm themselves, and that is all I need for this thread.
…
[/QUOTE]
Not *my *thread.
[/quote]
You help to turn it into a gun worshipping thread, with your accusations of not having a plan and so on. As far as that goes, it appears as though you skipped posts, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
To be fair, I now take it that that was the intent of the thread all along, so you didn’t help to hijack it, but rather, to help keep it on track for ridiculing people without guns, you know, at least 2/3rd’s of the US population.
And you still haven’t gotten back to me on your plan to deal with a dozen heavily armed gang members invading your home. Do you not have one?
You are adamantly against a federal law requiring that people are required to determine that identity of the person to whom they will transfer their gun to and that they have passed a background check. You say that state laws are enough, and then call it an “excuse” when we point out the glaring loopholes that the policy that you advocate for leaves open.
Name a policy that you have advocated for that would lessen the ease of getting guns into the hands of criminals.
By definition, any policy that makes it easier for “law abiding people” to get strapped also helps criminals. “Criminal” is not a soul stamp you get on birth. It’s something you can choose to do or become at any single point of your life, for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, again, by definition, any measure you support that makes it trivial for law abidin’ good guys with guns to get said guns also makes it effortless for criminals to get guns.
And if you think “b-b-b-but I support background checks !” gets you off the hook, remind yourself that even that only means a guy with a rap sheet longer than my… pretty long only needs to threaten, coerce or bribe a “law abiding person” into getting a gun for them. And that’s just the least convenient method.