U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:07 PM
 
Location: USA
1,863 posts, read 2,784,092 times
Reputation: 1809

Advertisements

Anybody with half a brain cell, knows better than this.

 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:28 PM
 
261 posts, read 420,095 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Exactly, you don't need it--so why do so many THINK they do?
Not the issue.

I went through a home invasion where in fact I did not need one, same as you. However, I still have one. The reason is that there may be a situation presented that requires greater force than hand-to-hand combat can muster.

Regardless of how much confidence you have in your physical abilities, there are realistic situations where a firearm is the best option. Let's face it: I got lucky that the guy invading my home ran out when he realized I was there. You got lucky that the 5'9 to 5'11, 250 lb. individual who broke into your home didn't know how to fight and didn't have the physique and mean streak of an NFL fullback.

Either of these guys could have easily been trained fighters capable of physically besting us and doing great harm or even killing us. That's where you're wrong about a gun being a crutch; it's one weapon in an arsenal (that also includes the options of hand-to-hand fighting, employment of other weapons such as knives, clubs, pepper spray, taser, etc.) that can be used to win a fight if the situation dictates and allows.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:41 PM
 
Location: USA
1,863 posts, read 2,784,092 times
Reputation: 1809
We have a right to bear arms in the United States. You folks talking about how you don't need a gun to fight off an attacker, what about women and elderly folks? Everyone needs to have a gun in the home, in case of emergency. That's not paranoia, it would be paranoia if there had never been a break-in or home invasion. From what I gather, home invasions are on the rise. Drug use is rampant, people on PCP are out of their minds and don't even know what they are doing when they are high. Meth is being cooked up, even in small rural communities...
Anyone who comes bustin' through my front door had better be prayed up and ready to meet their maker.
I can, and I will, use deadly force against someone invading my home; I will protect myself, and my family.
That's a fact.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
15,952 posts, read 12,461,076 times
Reputation: 7751
The study is fatally flawed. It only considers people who were shot. It does not consider people who were armed and were not shot, which is probably ten times as large as the other number.
 
Old 10-09-2009, 10:02 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
7,091 posts, read 5,154,015 times
Reputation: 4809
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
I'd like to know what in the Christian's Hell "physical prowess" and adobe have to do with this discussion.
Good point, seems every time someone tries to get back to how owning a firearm increases the risk of being killed with it, we get hijacked back into Tarzan and Steven Seagal. So, I will try again. This argument has been presented soooo many times before, with study after study by whatever anti firearms group is in vogue at the moment, and it doesn't wash any more now than it did 30 years ago. If this were, indeed, true, the firearms related deaths in the US would have long surpassed those by drunk drivers, home ladder accidents, slips and falls,and natural causes combined. Especially when you consider the number of firearms in private hands. There was another hread on this not long ago, that said having a gun made it 22 times moe likely that it would kill the owner than an intruder/attacker. oooook then. Among what demographic? Was this 'study' done in a particular city? Nationwide? none of this was presented. Just the figure. Interesting. Tells me that this is nothing but conjecture from people with an irrational fear of firearms, and a bogotry and hatred for firearms owners. A fear tactic, designed to provoke an emotional response, using isolated incidents and touting them as the norm.
 
Old 10-10-2009, 04:55 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,237 posts, read 26,936,731 times
Reputation: 10597
What about people who shoot their spouses? No gun in the home, no spouses shooting each other.

Just one story:
snopes.com: The Bennett Bridge Murder

of many:
wife shoots husband, bridge - Yahoo! Search Results
 
Old 10-10-2009, 04:57 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,237 posts, read 26,936,731 times
Reputation: 10597
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
I'd like to know what in the Christian's Hell "physical prowess" and adobe have to do with this discussion.
some call a gun a "tool" instead of a "crutch". But you can manage just fine without "tools" also--if you use your big head. A little ingenuity goes a long way.
 
Old 10-10-2009, 12:39 PM
 
261 posts, read 420,095 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
some call a gun a "tool" instead of a "crutch". But you can manage just fine without "tools" also--if you use your big head. A little ingenuity goes a long way.
Well, TK, our society would obviously not have reached the technological point it has today without the use of tools, would it have? If we were cavemen, we'd all be the ones using spears and slings to kill our prey, then blades to cut up the meat and take it home...you'd be the one sitting at the top of the hill waiting for the woolly mammoth to walk by so you could roll the boulder down on him, then tear the meat away with your bare hands

Some things can be accomplished without the use of tools. Many things cannot. <==PERIOD
 
Old 10-10-2009, 12:40 PM
 
261 posts, read 420,095 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
What about people who shoot their spouses? No gun in the home, no spouses shooting each other.

Just one story:
snopes.com: The Bennett Bridge Murder

of many:
wife shoots husband, bridge - Yahoo! Search Results
I challenge you to find MORE of those stories than cases of home intruders being shot by law-abiding citizens.

Use google, so you can see what I see
 
Old 10-10-2009, 12:58 PM
 
Location: In the sticks, SC
1,642 posts, read 2,917,549 times
Reputation: 1038
I am all for concealed carry, however I do think guns give a false sense of security. Just having a gun at your side is not enough; you must be ready to use that gun and pull the trigger without hesitation, and most civilians ( those without police or military training) are not ready to do that. So unless you practice with your firearm, yes I do believe that you would probably end up getting yourself shot or shooting a passerby before you shoot the bad guy.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:30 PM.

© 2005-2014, 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 - Top