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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.