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.
With the recent tragic shooting spree in Florida weighing heavy on our hearts the nations attention has tuned to what to do about this terrible problem.
Some would ban guns outright but we all know this would do nothing to stop those bent on murder.
Others are looking to regulate gun ownership by raising the minimum age for certain types of guns and expanding background checks which does seem like a good start.
While others including our President think it is a good idea to allow teachers that have been trained to carry a firearm in school.
As news emerges from Florida we have found out that the security detail that was supposed to be positioned to prevent this type of maniac from getting into the school sat in his car waiting for the shooting to stop. Now I know that most Police officers would do everything they could to help the victims but this incident should give everyone pause to consider that even if the cavalry is outside they might not be able or willing to help which leaves us on our own.
The response times after calling 911 can be several minutes and what happens during that time can be life or death.
This question is for the anti gun people that would disarm the law abiding gun owners of this nation.
If a deranged shooter was outside your classroom, office or home door would you want a gun to defend yourself, your family, friends, children, or would you throw yourself at the mercy of the lunatic that wants to kill you?
Even if we removed the gun and gave the sicko a machete wouldn't you want to have the means to stop the threat from hurting or killing someone?
There is a saying in war time that there are no atheists in foxholes and I think the same could be said of even the staunchest anti gun person that if they were in a tight spot such as a shooter outside their door that they would want the means to stop that person.
Will the anti gun people admit this?
If you think that guns are a magic panacea to all your problems you are too immature to responsibly own a gun.
This question is for the anti gun people that would disarm the law abiding gun owners of this nation.
Probably not a lot of "anti-gun" people as you describe. I think there are a lot of people that want to make it harder to get a gun and not have automatics all over our streets. I guess to some, that would be "anti-gun", which I find kind of moronic, but I digress.
As far as someone rolling up to my door with a gun and me not being armed, I guess I would go for a quick attack with a knife. In close range a knife can be very effective if you can sneak up on someone or the other person doesn't have the gun drawn already. A baseball bat would also work if you can distract the gunman with someone and you get close to them. I am in a heavily armed area and many would have a shotgun in their homes for protection, so most around here would consider that smart, since you don't need great aim and it is effective. Of course the dumb NRA would consider a shotgun owner, "anti-gun" if they are for background checks and no autos, but whatever. The NRA is stupid!
If you think that guns are a magic panacea to all your problems you are too immature to responsibly own a gun.
That is a ridiculous statement. Where did I say that a gun was a "magic panacea"?
The original question was for the gun grabbing Left wing people that would disarm law abiding gun owners.
What would you do if a gunman was outside your door and he wanted in to harm you?
Maat55 a few posts back had an excellent example: "My 80 year old mother-in-law recently had some nut bang on her door demanding she open it. She had a real looking toy gun sitting nearby and waved it at him through a door window. He ran like a rabbit. Fortunately for her he did. Waving a fake gun is meaningless if attacked."
There have been many cases where the mere presence of a gun has stopped a crime from happening.
Do we really want grandma to get beat up and robbed or worse?
I'm a middle aged guy and the thought of physically fighting off a 20 year old guy bent on hurting me is a scary thought. I highly doubt I would ever find myself in a situation like that but if I ever did I would want a gun to stop the threat before it got started.
As a human our most basic instinct in a dangerous situation is to fight or run away. If you are a teacher with 20 kids behind you with no where to go and there is a gun man kicking or shooting in your door I think that even the most liberal anti gun person in that room would want something more to defend themselves than swinging a chair.
That is a ridiculous statement. Where did I say that a gun was a "magic panacea"?
The original question was for the gun grabbing Left wing people that would disarm law abiding gun owners.
What would you do if a gunman was outside your door and he wanted in to harm you?
Maat55 a few posts back had an excellent example: "My 80 year old mother-in-law recently had some nut bang on her door demanding she open it. She had a real looking toy gun sitting nearby and waved it at him through a door window. He ran like a rabbit. Fortunately for her he did. Waving a fake gun is meaningless if attacked."
There have been many cases where the mere presence of a gun has stopped a crime from happening.
Do we really want grandma to get beat up and robbed or worse?
I'm a middle aged guy and the thought of physically fighting off a 20 year old guy bent on hurting me is a scary thought. I highly doubt I would ever find myself in a situation like that but if I ever did I would want a gun to stop the threat before it got started.
As a human our most basic instinct in a dangerous situation is to fight or run away. If you are a teacher with 20 kids behind you with no where to go and there is a gun man kicking or shooting in your door I think that even the most liberal anti gun person in that room would want something more to defend themselves than swinging a chair.
Probably not a lot of "anti-gun" people as you describe. I think there are a lot of people that want to make it harder to get a gun and not have automatics all over our streets. I guess to some, that would be "anti-gun", which I find kind of moronic, but I digress.
As far as someone rolling up to my door with a gun and me not being armed, I guess I would go for a quick attack with a knife. In close range a knife can be very effective if you can sneak up on someone or the other person doesn't have the gun drawn already. A baseball bat would also work if you can distract the gunman with someone and you get close to them. I am in a heavily armed area and many would have a shotgun in their homes for protection, so most around here would consider that smart, since you don't need great aim and it is effective. Of course the dumb NRA would consider a shotgun owner, "anti-gun" if they are for background checks and no autos, but whatever. The NRA is stupid!
You are right there might not be a lot of anti gun people as I describe but there are plenty that have no clue about what they are talking about.
First off there are very few if any of the highly regulated "automatics" that many in the media confuse with the semi automatic. Full autos have been illegal to own by the general public except by a few that are licensed by the feds.
The thing is there are many on the Left that want to disarm the American public and put all their trust in the Police to protect them. As we saw in Florida the security/police that was responsible to protect those kids did not go in until the shooting stopped. How does that make you feel?
If the scary looking black semi automatic guns are banned what is next when the gun grabbers realize that there are actually more powerful and deadly guns out there? Will those also be banned?
What happens when all we are left with are shotguns, the weapon used in the Columbine shooting?
The reason for this debate is to suggest to the anti gun people that guns in the hands of good people that obey the law is a good thing and a deterrent to crime.
The original question was for the gun grabbing Left wing people that would disarm law abiding gun owners.
This is a classic straw man argument, though. No one on this thread has advocated for taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners. A lot of us have questions about overarching gun culture, have suggestions about how we would feel safe, and wonder why the 2nd amendment, above all, cannot be challenged or questioned. We wonder why the NRA, a lobbying group, is able to buy off our legislators and shut down any research and conversation about gun violence in America.
I'm not "anti-gun" but I don't get it How can people look at innocents getting murdered at concerts, schools, malls, nightclubs, etc., time after time and deny that easy, unquestioned, unfettered access to firearms is part of the equation? How can people look at these tragedies and their first thought is "don't challenge my gun ownership!" and not "How can we keep this from happening?"
This is a classic straw man argument, though. No one on this thread has advocated for taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners. A lot of us have questions about overarching gun culture, have suggestions about how we would feel safe, and wonder why the 2nd amendment, above all, cannot be challenged or questioned.
I'm not "anti-gun" but I don't get it How can people look at innocents getting murdered at concerts, schools, malls, nightclubs, etc., time after time and deny that easy, unquestioned, unfettered access to firearms is part of the equation? How can people look at these tragedies and their first thought is "don't challenge my gun ownership!" and not "How can we keep this from happening?"
It's not a strawman argument, at least no moreso than your argument. I think because people start attacking the inanimate object when the question is asked, instead of looking at what's wrong with the user. What about the society that encourages a sick mind to seek their 5 minutes of fame on youtube and twitter by committing random acts of violence, and usually on those who cannot fight them back so well?
Remember when it was the cool thing to bash elderly people by kicking them down, or punching them in the face, and then posting a video of it? Did anyone start protesting the feet and hands of teenagers over it? Of course not. This may not be as damning of an example, but it is certainly a similar example.
Its not true that a legal citizen can buy a gun unfettered. There are local, state, and at a bare minimum, federal paperwork that has to filed. Some states do have waiting periods.
Should we do away with social media so fameseekers aren't encouraged to continue sick minded ways to seek fame? I don't know. Ive certainly learned a lot of good things watching videos. Do the fameseekers overshadow all the good things Ive learned?
I wonder how many people actually carry a gun to their door when the doorbell rings, just in case someone is there who wants to do them harm, or carry a gun around with them in their home in case they might surprise an intruder.
If someone is surprised by an armed intruder, it’s already too late to grab a gun.
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.
