U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood, CA
1,238 posts, read 1,330,582 times
Reputation: 970

Advertisements



I'm hungry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2015, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,242 posts, read 3,398,836 times
Reputation: 8783
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Well now we know you are completely lying.

Putting the bolt in is pushing the rear take down pin, lifting the upper receiver, pushing the bolt in towards the barrel, and putting the rear take down pin back in. Thats about 1/10th of a field strip. Congrats, you take 30 seconds when a 12 year old girl can do a complete field strip. So lets say it plainly: you don't own an AR15.
I meant 30 seconds from sleeping on the bed to unlocking the safe to assembling and locking and loading the weapon. It's a combination lock which was the longest action of the process. I had my wife wake me up once and time me, the whole process took about 30 seconds. I could probably do it faster, but she thinks it's stupid to practice that and would prefer I sold the weapon anyway. She really doesn't like it in the house.

Quote:
Second, FBI/DOJS says there are around 3,600,000 home invasions in a year. With 116,000,000 households that is around a 3.1% chance this year that you will need to use your firearm to defend yourself or your home. But good on you for thinking "It can never happen to me". I'm sure people who skip insurance probably said that too.
What the heck are you talking about? 3.6 million home invasions! The apocalypse must have happened! Here's what the FBI has: FBI — Table 23

Burglaries: 1.8 million. 1.3 million of them are of residences. That's anyone stealing anything from your residence at any time. Only 60% of them are forcible entry, so that's 800,000 break-ins out of 116 million residences. The one-year chances of anyone forcing their way into your locked home at any time of day or night and stealing anything are 2.19%.

Robberies: This would be where someone threatens you with violence and steals something. There are 50,000 robberies that occurred within residences in 2013. Only 42% involved a firearm. I won't calculate the odds of that, but they're considerably less than a burglary.

That's averaged out across the United States. Non-metropolitan counties (which I live in) have stats about half of that. I've asked my PD how many home invasions have happened, and the last one in my neighborhood was 2004 and it was drug related. The last home invasions in my general 3 town region was in 2012 and they involved drugs.

Quote:
Third, if you think you will kill someone who is drunk or high for being on your property, please check yourself into the nearest psych facility. You are a danger to yourself and others. The rest of us normal folks can properly identify a threat. In fact homeowners, like the ones you espouse are too stupid to own a standard capacity magazine or "assault rifle", are BETTER then police at identifying perpetrators, shooting them, and cause less collateral damage as a result.
I never said I would do that. There are scenarios, where a drunk person will enter an apartment or townhome or even a single family residence mistakenly thinking its theirs. The homeowner will shoot the person. The likelihood of that is more likely than a home invasion in my area, since I do see drunk people wandering up the street occasionally; there is a popular bar about a mile south of me.

LAKE ELSINORE: Intruder shot by homeowner was drunk, lost, friends say - Press Enterprise

No one needs to die that way. Somehow I doubt a person drunk enough to stumble in the wrong house a deadly threat. Such a person is certainly unarmed.

Quote:
Your nieces shouldn't be near your firearm, which you state is hanging on your wall without a bolt. So first on this disaster: your gun is either a hunk of metal more apt to giving them a concussion from falling off the wall OR your gun is loaded. Which is it? Because it should be put away with young company that cannot be trusted, but even if it wasn't it would be the same as leaving a piece of rebar in your room.
Not loaded. Unless I'm taking it to the range or hunting I want that weapon non-functional so no one can get their hands on it and have a negligent discharge. My house has very little storage and my wife's clothes take up the closet space in the bedroom. I'm obviously not going to put it in the kids' bedroom closet. I don't want to put it in the garage, so you tell me where to put it.

Quote:
Wait, you just said you'd shoot the first drunk you see on your property, now your running out the window. Hey, awesome. I'm sure the mom can collect her 2.3 kids from their rooms and just throw them out the window as well, right? Whats good for you must be good for everyone.
Where did I say that I would shoot first and ask questions later? That is precisely why the weapon is kept in a non-functional state.

My house is small, and any shots I took would have a good chance of going in the kids room if taken from the vicinity of my bedroom. My bedroom is oriented on the north side of the house, everything else is south. Even if I shoot toward the southeast angled away from the kids room, the water heater is in that direction, there's a possibility a round could ricochet through the paper thin wall separating it from the kids room. Really, to take a safe shot inside my house I would need to be in the living room and that's probably where the intruder is coming from. A knife is probably a more effective weapon given the layout and small size of my house. That's why in any emergency the kids will hear from me to get out (the fire drill we've practiced).

I'd rather join them join me outside than take shots inside the house and risk hitting them.

I would hesitate even more about firing a weapon designed to shoot people at 300 yards from within my house. It could easily send a round into one of my neighbor's houses which are all made out of paper thin wood.

Quote:
Connecticut's response was pure stupidity. FBI, DOJ, and the ATF all said that magazine limits, "assault weapons" and similar laws have ZERO effect on crime. If they did crime would have skyrocketed after the 2004 sunset of the federal AWB. But wait, that didn't happen. Registration, so that they can pull a California, Dinkins, NOLA, SAFE ACT (oops, we need to get some RINO's on board so lets skip the forced confiscation and hush it up that we ever talked about it), etc and come grab what you've got after they "rethink" their position or pass another law. yeah, that's wonderful.

But hey, you must love the Second Circuits ruling on supposed "constitutional rights": high permit costs, time off work, only kept in the home, can't actually practice with it, and being attacked outside the home is "imaginary".
I guess you would prefer we do not a damn thing and just accept school shootings as a price of freedom. Sorry, but I refuse to do that.

When a 17 year old boy took his parents hunting rifle and blew a hole in his head in front of his classmates, that was when I bought a safe and locked up the bolt from my AR. I always kept it unloaded anyway, but now it's really non-functional unless I am going to use it. Maybe if you have a connection with a school shooting you'd think differently too about these issues. It made me think, just what is so damn important about my weapon? What are the actual chances I would have to defend my house from invaders? Is there a better way to deal with an emergency than using the weapon and thus not needing it to be at the ready? This was not a random occurrence, it happened in my town, which is only 80,000 people in the middle of nowhere and happened last winter. No one thought a thing like that could occur in a picture perfect town like this. http://www.bendbulletin.com/localsta...room?related=1

I've taught my kids that weapons are not toys, but I know the family of the boy and I'm sure his parents did too as they are responsible people from what I know of them. In a state of severe depression, their son took matters into his own hands and traumatized for life the other kids who had to see him shoot himself.

Last edited by redguard57; 02-10-2015 at 08:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:52 PM
 
10,608 posts, read 13,387,052 times
Reputation: 17158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeenThomas View Post
DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. A gunman has shot seven people, killing five of them, in a subdivision west of Atlanta.

Police: 7 people shot, 5 dead in Georgia shooting - The Washington Post
Five people were killed, including several children. And these people were killed not only because this guy was mentally-ill... These people were killed because this guy have a license and gun! I'm not against all weapons, but i'm against weapons in hands of average citizens, which think that they will never use their guns wrong!
People, time to understand, that gun under your pillow will bring more harm than good.
HOW do you know the guy wasn't mentally ill and that he had a "license"?

Give UP the argument that guns should be prohibited from average citizens.

It is a basic TENANT of our country. A country of 320 MILLION people. Not including all the illegals.

There are other countries that may suit you better.

OH SNAP.

A BETTER report is out there.

It was domestic violence. The WIFE already had an ORDER OF PROTECTION against him.
Quote:
Andrews had asked judge for a temporary protective order in August 2013. At one point, she wrote, Prather forced his way inside her locked home when she was there alone. He also pinned her down on the stairs and sexually assaulted her, she wrote in a court filing.
You just lost the argument. Again.

In FACT, you just made the PRO GUN argument since the LAWS and the POLITICIANS and the GOVERNMENT and the LIBERAL SOCIAL WORKERS and the COURTS FAILED.

Georgia police ID man they say killed 2 adults, 2 children, self | Fox News

Georgia man who shot ex, kids had fought over child custody
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 08:56 PM
 
10,608 posts, read 13,387,052 times
Reputation: 17158
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool hand luke View Post
I will not get into a "I'm right, and you're wrong" debate with you or anyone. That's a waste of time- people by nature simply don't admit to being wrong. You can have all your reports and facts. I'm still anti-gun, and plan to remain that way. Guns kill, and outside of fighting a war- don't serve any positive purpose.
The dead people in this story would strongly disagree with you.

The killer had already assaulted the wife in the past and she had an ORDER OF PROTECTION. Lotta good that did her.

Nice FAILURE of your big government system, there.

If she had a gun, she and her kids would be alive.

So until YOU CAN PROTECT the citizens, your argument is invalid. Besides, we're not going to change our constitution and way of life anyway. So you'll stay pressed, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,242 posts, read 3,398,836 times
Reputation: 8783
Quote:
Originally Posted by runswithscissors View Post
The dead people in this story would strongly disagree with you.

The killer had already assaulted the wife in the past and she had an ORDER OF PROTECTION. Lotta good that did her.

Nice FAILURE of your big government system, there.

If she had a gun, she and her kids would be alive.

So until YOU CAN PROTECT the citizens, your argument is invalid. Besides, we're not going to change our constitution and way of life anyway. So you'll stay pressed, I guess.
Is there not some middle ground between a society where we all open carry and one where we disarm every single person? I feel like there could be. Why do these arguments always get into this "guns are weapons of war which should never be used" vs. "everyone should brandish a weapon?"

With regard to the family massacre, if it were me, I would have moved far away from my crazy ex. Knowing about how he was a loon and all, I would not have wanted to be within 500 miles of him.

For the record I'm fine with concealed carry, although I would prefer my state had more training requirements. At this point all you need in my county is a 3 hour night class down at the sheriff's dept. and $25.00. I feel if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you can give up at least whole weekend. I would gladly pay more for the increased training (if I can afford a $500 gun, I can afford $100 for a class). Seriously, my speeding ticket class was 12 hours.

I'm also fine with weapons for home defense although in my particular case I would not use mine unless it was a very extreme circumstance.

Last edited by redguard57; 02-10-2015 at 09:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2015, 10:04 PM
 
750 posts, read 606,272 times
Reputation: 1106
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
For the record I'm fine with concealed carry, although I would prefer my state had more training requirements. At this point all you need in my county is a 3 hour night class down at the sheriff's dept. and $25.00. I feel if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you can give up at least whole weekend. I would gladly pay more for the increased training (if I can afford a $500 gun, I can afford $100 for a class). Seriously, my speeding ticket class was 12 hours.
This is a good idea. There also needs to be more education about where to put guns in a household with children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 04:09 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,032 posts, read 6,861,665 times
Reputation: 4207
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeeps View Post

I'm hungry.
Just the other day my toaster got up and toasted some bread all by itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 05:19 AM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 2,948,971 times
Reputation: 8439
If the 2nd amendment was deleted by a new amendment, and guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. Right? But what if there was a reward, such as $10,000, for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in possession of a gun? And what if the penalty for being in possession of a gun was life in prison? How long would outlaws still have guns? Wouldn't they turn each other in, to get the rewards? And wouldn't a lot of them voluntarily give up their guns, to avoid the risk of life in prison?

I'm not saying we should do any such thing. Just that it isn't necessarily true that if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns. With the right combination of laws and enforcement, it might not be all that hard to reach the point where there were almost no guns among the general population.

The above is logic, not a gunfight. So there is no reason for you guys to start shooting back. You're only imagining that I'm shooting at you and your sacred 2nd amendment. I just want to know why people seem to honestly believe it isn't possible to get rid of guns. Those who sincerely believe it, based on sincere logic, should refute the above logic logically, with no emotional arguments that would make you seem like nuts.

The logic I give above is oversimplified to try to make the point. In the real world, it might be more like constantly tightening penalties for gun ownership. Such as one year a small fine, the next year a bigger fine, the next year a short prison sentence, etc., getting more and more severe year after year, to reduce the number of guns constantly, year after year. Not that I'm necessarily in favor of that, anymore than the above. Just that it seems to me it should disprove the whole idea that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 06:45 AM
 
Location: georgia
939 posts, read 619,764 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
Leftists by nature simply don't admit to being wrong. FIFY (again)

You won't get into a "I'm right, and you're wrong" debate because you're wrong. Go figure. You opinion is horse feces and when presented with evidence of such the response is:




I beg to laugh. Actually it's not so funny because we have to deal with these types of mental midgets in our society......
Do you feel better about yourself now that you have insulted me? You and your kind are the reason I say I won't get into a debate about who is right- you're whole mental well being rests on believing you are right, and others wrong. That is sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2015, 06:49 AM
 
Location: georgia
939 posts, read 619,764 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
OF course you are not getting into a debate with me, because my fact support the reality that gun ownership benefits society by diverting and stopping crime and criminals in numbers that substantially outweigh gun violence perpetrated by criminals.

You are more than welcome to your viewpoint, but you are not welcome to curtail the constitution rights of others when your viewpoint does not square with reality.

Apparently, you would confiscate all guns outside the theater of war....so no guns for police? No secret service protection for the US President? Sounds ridiculous to me, but that is your viewpoint and you are welcome to it.

Now, if you argue that police should have guns and that the President is entitled to protection by a gun toting Secret Service agent, then it seems that you think some people are entitled to more protection than others and we are only entitled to protection if an armed police officer can reach you in time.

Guns do not kill anymore than cars or knives kill. Without a person wielding or operating any inanimate object, it is not capable of committing any action, legal or otherwise.
Where am I trying to curtail your rights? I do not have to agree with the pro gun lobby- I am against people owning anything besides standard hunting rifles, and I stand by that. Stop taking others opinions so PERSONALLY!! I could see you gun people getting upset if I ACTUALLY had the power to take your guns, but I'm simply stating an opinion. Pro gun folks amaze me at how they take any disagreement personally!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top