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.
Reasonable people already knew this because it makes for intuitive common sense....
I'm a very reasonable person with plenty common sense and I know that if I reached over and dialed 911 on my phone right now I would be very lucky to see flashing red and blue lights racing down my street in under 7 minutes. I also know that if I reached over the phone and opened my biometric gun safe then grabbed my Hornady loaded XDM .40 I can be ready to defend this home in under 20 seconds.
I have a nice home alarm, I have a dog, I have reinforced door frames, great dead bolts, security lights and a well rehearsed family plan for what to do in the case of an intruder/burglar in our home... none of that stuff does us any good whatsoever if the intruder who breaks in intends on hurting or killing my family instead of just stealing my TV. I refuse to give anyone who breaks into my home the benefit of the doubt, the survival and safety of my family is always more important than the life or a home invader.
I practice common sense gun safety, I practice using my firearms in many different scenarios and I take home protection more seriously than most people ever dream of. I would be the happiest old guy around if I died at 90 years old knowing that I never once had to use any of my firearms to protect my home or my family. With all that being said, I couldn't possibly care less what a bunch of limp wristed guys from Harvard have to say about guns or my right to protect my family. If you don't want or life guns don't buy one, leave me and my family alone.
(I don't have to read this thread to tell you that conservatives don't believe in science! What were you thinking OP?!)
What science? The study creators admit that it's impossible to prove what they claim in the study. This entire premise is nothing more than click bait for left wing idiots looking to feel better about themselves.
If a criminal was coming at you and your family you would obviously want a gun to defend your family.
I'd rather the criminal just not have a gun in the first place. What most gun lovers don't understand is that the more guns there are around, the more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Furthermore, the best way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the economic inequality that fosters it. This is why Scandinavia, which has relatively low wealth inequality has way less crime than the UK, which has moderate inequality, which in turn has way less crime (per capita) than the United States, which has severe inequality.
I'm sorry, but study after study shows that the best way to reduce crime is to reduce inequality. Not more guns.
Exactly. So why don't we concentrate on that instead of trying to pass more gun laws? You advocate for stricter gun laws and then go on to admit that guns aren't actually the problem.
If Obama really believed in disarming he would tell the secret service to turn in their guns. What he says he believes in and what he actually believes are two different things.
As one of the most ardent gun rights supporters on this forum, I'm really tired of hearing this "tell Obama to get rid of his security team" argument....
AS IF your security needs as an average citizen are as high and complex as Obama's, him being an elected official and a public figure. As if you, as an average citizen, would have as big of a target on your back as him?
Let's drop this whole ridiculous argument, shall we? There's obviously a huge difference between the threat an elected public official faces, and one that a plumber in any far flung corner of smalltown, USA faces.
Of course I believe that everyone has a Right to defend themselves with a firearm, but comparing average citizens to the President of the United States is just ridiculous.
As one of the most ardent gun rights supporters on this forum, I'm really tired of hearing this "tell Obama to get rid of his security team" argument....
AS IF your security needs as an average citizen are as high and complex as Obama's, him being an elected official and a public figure. As if you, as an average citizen, would have as big of a target on your back as him?
Let's drop this whole ridiculous argument, shall we? There's obviously a huge difference between the threat an elected public official faces, and one that a plumber in any far flung corner of smalltown, USA faces.
Of course I believe that everyone has a Right to defend themselves with a firearm, but comparing average citizens to the President of the United States is just ridiculous.
You have obviously never plumbed a house in the segundo barrio...
(I don't have to read this thread to tell you that conservatives don't believe in science! What were you thinking OP?!)
Generalizing much?
(If you reply with "no" or anything along the lines "that's the truth" you will literally be categorized as being ignorant. If I can find 1 person who is conservative and believes in science, your argument would become invalid)
Biblethumpers may be the most obvious form of anti-intellectualism, more covert forms of anti-intellectualism include dismissing reports, analysis and studies because they come from a source that has a position.
Biblethumpers certainly don't have a corner on the anti-intellectualism market. It is quite common for a university study to just confirm a position they have already taken. That's why so many studies contradict each other. This is true for almost any topic including guns, drugs, global warming, economics, smoking and child rearing.
It's very simple. There are 3.8 million square miles in the U.S. Exclude the most violent 50 square miles and our gun homicide rate (not suicide) is lower or equal to Canada, the UK, Australia and other nations with strict gun laws.
Now that's an inconvenient truth liberals can't handle. Interesting is that those areas have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
Plano Texas (yes, the Texas that loves guns) has the lowest homicide rate in the US and Canada is four times higher than Plano. The UK and Australia are more than twice as high as Plano. How can it be possible that a city with relatively free gun ownership can have the lowest homicide rate?
Hint: it isn't gun laws.
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.
