What the hell happen in Virginia??

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

Your first paragraph states the current situation in the US. I also don't own an "assault rifle" as I feel that I don't really need one. It's nice to have the option though, as long as I meet the criteria of not being a danger to society.

I also just heard that mass murders account for about .5% of gun deaths in the US. While it's still too many, mass murders aren't the cause of huge gun-related fatalities. Of the 30,000 per year, 20,000 are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% of those are committed by people that are somehow related to or otherwise involved with the victim.

It's a shitty situation for sure but eliminating "assault rifles" will likely have little to no impact on the annual gun death rate.

That is where the "responsible owner" fallacy rears it's head. Average Joes who aren't restricted by our lax laws own guns without trouble...until they catch their spouse cheating or catch a case of hard times..then the law abider makes a rash mistake and somebody ends up dead.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Godfather. said:

why would anybody in thier right mind say it's o.k to own a .22 cal gun for home protection but not an AK ? are there different levels of dead for breaking into a home and attacking a family ? the AK simi auto would change an intruders mind a heck of a lot quicker than a .22, if I protect my home with a large cal weapon or a small cal weapon or if I just want to own one because I like them is none of ANYBODYS business unless your the poor bastard attacking my family then you will find out what a large cal weapon will do....simple really

Godfather.

very very true. "stop intruder, I have my bolt action .22 ready to go if you come one step closer!" lol
5.56 and 9mm are my calibers of choice when protecting my family.
I think guns are like life insurance....you never want to use it but it's there just in case.

It's my opinion that in the extremely extremely rare situation where you find yourself standing at your door attempting to ward off intruders... stopping power is infinitely greater with a 12 gauge shotgun and so is your accuracy with its blast pattern.

Think about that while your knees are knocking against each other and you've squirted a rosebud in your drawers.

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

Your first paragraph states the current situation in the US. I also don't own an "assault rifle" as I feel that I don't really need one. It's nice to have the option though, as long as I meet the criteria of not being a danger to society.

I also just heard that mass murders account for about .5% of gun deaths in the US. While it's still too many, mass murders aren't the cause of huge gun-related fatalities. Of the 30,000 per year, 20,000 are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% of those are committed by people that are somehow related to or otherwise involved with the victim.

It's a shitty situation for sure but eliminating "assault rifles" will likely have little to no impact on the annual gun death rate.

That is where the "responsible owner" fallacy rears it's head. Average Joes who aren't restricted by our lax laws own guns without trouble...until they catch their spouse cheating or catch a case of hard times..then the law abider makes a rash mistake and somebody ends up dead.

And then those people are arrested and tried by a jury of their peers. That's how it works.

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

Godfather. said:

why would anybody in thier right mind say it's o.k to own a .22 cal gun for home protection but not an AK ? are there different levels of dead for breaking into a home and attacking a family ? the AK simi auto would change an intruders mind a heck of a lot quicker than a .22, if I protect my home with a large cal weapon or a small cal weapon or if I just want to own one because I like them is none of ANYBODYS business unless your the poor bastard attacking my family then you will find out what a large cal weapon will do....simple really

Godfather.

very very true. "stop intruder, I have my bolt action .22 ready to go if you come one step closer!" lol
5.56 and 9mm are my calibers of choice when protecting my family.
I think guns are like life insurance....you never want to use it but it's there just in case.

It's my opinion that in the extremely extremely rare situation where you find yourself standing at your door attempting to ward off intruders... stopping power is infinitely greater with a 12 gauge shotgun and so is your accuracy with its blast pattern.

Think about that while your knees are knocking against each other and you've squirted a rosebud in your drawers.

This is why the tools are only part of the equation. Training and preparedness would also be needed in that scenario.

Last-12-Exit said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

But unfortunately, there's no way to determine who is and who isn't a responsible gun owner because guns do not have to be registered like vehicles. Part of the registration process for guns should include being ticketed for offenses like not renewing registrations or your gun being used in a crime. This should all be on record. Then we could truly find out how many responsible gun owners we have.

Absolutely, and the whole process will make it easier to detect those with red flags.
Anybody with any sort of violence on their record should be prohibited.

Wouldn't conducting background checks for all purchases accomplish just that?

Current background checks do not do this. Comprehensive background checks along with registrations would definitely accomplish this.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

But unfortunately, there's no way to determine who is and who isn't a responsible gun owner because guns do not have to be registered like vehicles. Part of the registration process for guns should include being ticketed for offenses like not renewing registrations or your gun being used in a crime. This should all be on record. Then we could truly find out how many responsible gun owners we have.

Absolutely, and the whole process will make it easier to detect those with red flags.
Anybody with any sort of violence on their record should be prohibited.

Wouldn't conducting background checks for all purchases accomplish just that?

It doesn't. If the NRA and it's lackeys didn't continually oppose all further restrictions, it might.
Part of the licensing process should be a medical evaluation, maybe even a drug test.
There is so much talk about mental health, but gunners oppose all efforts to check the mental health of gun buyers.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Godfather. said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Again, no gun in the history of man, has ever been made to defend your home. The intruder doesn't know what you're packing. Basically what you're asking is which gun is more effective at killing quicker. Which is the ak-47, unless you're a marksman and can do a dude between the eyes with a .22

well they make weapons with the specific objective to defend your home. they have shotguns made for hunting and shotguns made specifically for home defense. same with rifles...same with hand guns.
and i bought my 9mm to defend my home...not hunt. so i guess I changed history. sweet!

Nope. They are all designed for killing things.

dude you can't just spew out stuff like "no gun history was made for self defence" that's just crazy talk.

Godfather.

'Gun history' is definitely a factor for preparing one's self for defence against guns. If you didn't know what a gun was... you might just walk up to it and peer down the barrel to see what's inside it.