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.
I prefer a PTR-91 with a 20 cartridge magazine in 7.62 x 51 for my home defense, my oldest daughter prefers the M4 carbine lookalike in 5.56 x 45 with a 30 cartridge magazine, and my younger daughter prefers her FN 2000 with a 30 cartridge magazine in 5.56 x 45.
our main pistols we carry when at home is the Glock-19 in 9mm each with 15 cartridge magazines.
we have shotguns available, but I sure as heck would not defend my home with only 5-8 cartridges.
They are both inanimate objects that only become deadly weapons because of the actions of a person. Ho many people do you think you could kill if you took a large sized truck and ran it down a few dozen busy sidewalks in NYC? Hundreds?
Gun violence has been on the decline since the early nineties. There is about 10 thousand people killed each year from gun violence, about the same amount are killed from drunk drivers alone.
If I leave a gun on the front seat of car that is running outside a convenient mart then certainly I'm responsible if either is used in the commission of a crime. If I have my car locked in the garage with gun inside and someone breaks into my house the responsibility is that of the criminal.
You are trying to make the victim of a crime into a criminal.
The only thing a gun can be used for is as a deadly weapon. Even if you use it for target practice, it's to practice using it as a deadly weapon. That alone puts it in a different property class than a vehicle. You have to misuse a vehicle to turn it into a murder weapon.
Just b/c there are fewer gun crimes, doesn't stop it from being an epidemic. It might not be as bad an epidemic, but it's still an epidemic. And comparing drunk driving to gun murders, when there are orders of magnitude more drivers than gun owners is a bad, pointless comparison.
If you sign on to own a gun, it's on you to secure it. I don't care if you have to padlock it, put it in a 200-lb safe with a retina scanner in order to make sure it doesn't get stolen. If you can't figure out a way to prevent your gun from getting robbed by a random thief, then you deserve to lose the gun and by held liable for losing it.
And comparing drunk driving to gun murders, when there are orders of magnitude more drivers than gun owners is a bad, pointless comparison.
There is about 100 million gun owners, 200 million licensed drivers one of which would be my 98 year old Grandmother who hasn't driven since the 80's.
Quote:
If you sign on to own a gun, it's on you to secure it. I don't care if you have to padlock it, put it in a 200-lb safe with a retina scanner in order to make sure it doesn't get stolen. If you can't figure out a way to prevent your gun from getting robbed by a random thief, then you deserve to lose the gun and by held liable for losing it.
So if I built a concrete wall with reinforced steel and the thief uses an exacavator to break into my house I'm responsible for that?
How about once flagged, always flagged? In other words, when taken off a watch list, a flag showing the prior investigation remains. How about a little communication between the FBI and NICS? How about these hotshot security firms tighten up on their vetting? We have sensible gun laws, the agencies handling and enforcing those laws are failures.
The only thing a gun can be used for is as a deadly weapon.
If it is not a deadly weapon, why else use it?
When you or a loved one is threatened with death or bodily harm, and cops are minutes away, you will be glad to have any weapon - especially a deadly one - to stop the assailant(s).
The only beneficiaries of a disarmed and helpless public are the PREDATORS.
No victim has ever been saved from attack because they were disarmed.
And I sincerely doubt that any survivor of an attack seeks to empower their tormentor with the knowledge they can prey with impunity.
The strong and ruthless, armed or not will attack the weak and helpless.
Just review the "Knockout Game," and other urban "sports" in nightly newscasts. Rape reports. The list is endless.
It's a wasted effort to assume you can rely on the government for protection. They won't.
And, no, you can't sue the government for failure to protect. It is an impossibility for the government to protect everyone. At best, they can prosecute after the fact.
Ultimately, it's YOUR responsibility to protect yourself when under attack.
If you think "tossing yourself to the wolves" is a viable tactic, go for it. But it is unmerciful to the next victim.
You have a right to own property, yet you pay property tax.
Actually, you're mixing two different categories.
Absolute ownership of private property is an endowed right, not subject to taxation.
Whereas qualified ownership of estate is a privilege, subject to an ad valorem tax.
Check your constitution for verification.
. . .
OWNERSHIP - “... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
"Land for a time" = qualified ownership = privilege
There is about 100 million gun owners, 200 million licensed drivers one of which would be my 98 year old Grandmother who hasn't driven since the 80's.
So if I built a concrete wall with reinforced steel and the thief uses an exacavator to break into my house I'm responsible for that?
There are not 100M gun owners. Maybe 100M live in a gun household, but it's not 100M gun owners.
It sucks that an excavator broke down your wall and you got robbed, but that doesn't excuse you.
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.
