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.
Hardly worth worrying about, much less buying a weapon that places my family at more risk.
Heck - we don't "worry" about this type of thing - we are merely prepared for the possibility.
And - having a weapon in our home is not putting my family more at risk - my wife has her Glock - I have my Sig - we both share the 30/30 outside on the patio -
In my town we require the police to respond quickly to calls and they do. Those that prove inefficient we fire, so SCOTUS really has nothing to do with it. It's a condition of employement.
In 25+ year in Washington DC, I've never had someone try to kick my door in. As far as I can tell from reading the newspaper it happens to a handful of people a year. Hardly worth worrying about, much less buying a weapon that places my family at more risk.
You have a hands-off attitude about your own personal security. In your reasoning, your family's safety revolves around the police? Other posters are correct, law enforcement are not legally required to protect each and every citizen (Warren vs. District of Columbia, for example). They are there to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, not to be responsible for crime prevention. This is why many law-abiding citizens own handguns. We don't consider guns to be our ONLY form of protection. Most gun-owners dial 911. Many have home security systems, dogs and safe places to hide. They work with law enforcement and the gun is an interim means of self-protection until the police arrive. A gun may not ultimately save a life, but it provides its owner with a chance to defend oneself. BTW: There is no code of ethics among thieves where they will only harm an armed person. There is no safety because you are harmless. They'll hurt or kill you because they have no remorse, or they want to hurt you because they're a rapist/killer or because they don't want to go to prison (you being a witness and all).
Ah yes - those precious, dangerous minutes between the break-in and before the police arrive. Even if you have the security of mind to know that they are required to respond quickly, the reality of "quickly" may not be quick enough to save your life. You or your loved ones may be shot or stabbed before the police get there. What's that saying, "when seconds count, help is minutes away"? It's very true.
And if they don't get to your home in time, will a fired police officer bring you or your wife back from the grave? Or would it still leave you with heartache but with more money to place flowers where her body rests? How can you put a price tag on legal damages in a lawsuit when the damage is the death of a loved one? Or witnessing the physical and lasting mental agony of rape when you failed to protect her during the hours she needed saved.
Really horrible things can happen to good people in cozy, safe neighborhoods. Look at what happened to Dr William Petit Jr's family.
The poster you are responding to has a cop on his door step as does every other resident -
And homes would come with heated guard shacks,then? That'd be pretty cool - in the winter the kiddies could hang out there while waiting for the school bus.
You have a hands-off attitude about your own personal security. In your reasoning, your family's safety revolves around the police? Other posters are correct, law enforcement are not legally required to protect each and every citizen (Warren vs. District of Columbia, for example). They are there to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, not to be responsible for crime prevention. This is why many law-abiding citizens own handguns. We don't consider guns to be our ONLY form of protection. Most gun-owners dial 911. Many have home security systems, dogs and safe places to hide. They work with law enforcement and the gun is an interim means of self-protection until the police arrive. A gun may not ultimately save a life, but it provides its owner with a chance to defend oneself. BTW: There is no code of ethics among thieves where they will only harm an armed person. There is no safety because you are harmless. They'll hurt or kill you because they have no remorse, or they want to hurt you because they're a rapist/killer or because they don't want to go to prison (you being a witness and all).
Ah yes - those precious, dangerous minutes between the break-in and before the police arrive. Even if you have the security of mind to know that they are required to respond quickly, the reality of "quickly" may not be quick enough to save your life. You or your loved ones may be shot or stabbed before the police get there. What's that saying, "when seconds count, help is minutes away"? It's very true.
And if they don't get to your home in time, will a fired police officer bring you or your wife back from the grave? Or would it still leave you with heartache but with more money to place flowers where her body rests? How can you put a price tag on legal damages in a lawsuit when the damage is the death of a loved one? Or witnessing the physical and lasting mental agony of rape when you failed to protect her during the hours she needed saved.
Really horrible things can happen to good people in cozy, safe neighborhoods. Look at what happened to Dr William Petit Jr's family.
No what I recognize is that home invasions are as rare as the proverbial "hens teeth." I further recognize that a weapon in the home leads to sharply higher rates of suicide as well as domestic violence deaths and wounding. Being a rational person, as opposed to a Chicken Little type, I make the rational decision, that a gun in the house doesn't make me or may family safer. Further a gun in the house of my neighbor doesn't make either of us safer. My collective neighbors and I have decided that we don't want guns in our town, so we have passed laws to enact that. We are in the process of complying with a poorly reasoned Supreme Court ruling and we will implement it so that it does the least damage to out plan to minimize guns in the District of Columbia. We don't propose that other cities or states adopt our approach, only that they leave us alone to adopt our approach in our city.
More horrible things happen to people in "cozy safe neighborhoods" from whacked out neighborhood gun owners than the boogie man you all fear. 2/3rd of women kill with a firearm are killed by a husband, boyfriend or other intimate acquaintance.
No what I recognize is that home invasions are as rare as the proverbial "hens teeth." I further recognize that a weapon in the home leads to sharply higher rates of suicide as well as domestic violence deaths and wounding.
Blah blah, blah, nice BS talking points. I imagine having a car greatly increases your chances of getting in an accident, a pool greatly increases the chance someone will drown & living with you greatly increases the chances for a suicide attempt.
Quote:
Being a rational person, as opposed to a Chicken Little type, I make the rational decision, that a gun in the house doesn't make me or may family safer.
Your decision, a silly alarmist one but its yours.
Quote:
Further a gun in the house of my neighbor doesn't make either of us safer. My collective neighbors and I have decided that we don't want guns in our town, so we have passed laws to enact that.
Obviously not quite true. Some of your neighbors took your City to court over this if you remember.
Quote:
We are in the process of complying with a poorly reasoned Supreme Court ruling and we will implement it so that it does the least damage to out plan to minimize guns in the District of Columbia.
Plan on spending more money in court & losing again. Your minimization has gotten you recognition as one of the most violent places in the US. The SCOTUS recognizes that & also the need for people to have a resonable defense from the violence you permit in your city.
Quote:
We don't propose that other cities or states adopt our approach, only that they leave us alone to adopt our approach in our city.
Not exactly true is it. We have all heard you cry about how people can buy guns in neighboring non nazi states. The truth is, if you could you would ban them nationwide so that you could feel good about yourself.
Quote:
More horrible things happen to people in "cozy safe neighborhoods" from whacked out neighborhood gun owners than the boogie man you all fear. 2/3rd of women kill with a firearm are killed by a husband, boyfriend or other intimate acquaintance.
More liberal talking points. Are you actually of the opinion that guns cause domestic violence & nobody got killed before firearms?
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.
