Couldn't you just leave the chamber empty and the hammer down on a pistol? That seems reasonable enough protection.Khell_Sennet post=18.75200.860664 said:
Poll: is a gun a good tool to have in a household?
- Thread starter Dom541
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am thinking perfectly clearly. You are willing to trust someone who wants to do you harm, and I am not. Which one of these opinions is the warped one? Don't threaten me with violence and I won't have a reason to draw on you.almo said:
Yes, the US did make the world safer by amassing Nukes. Their development was inevitable and I would rather they only be in the hands of those who are hesitant to use them. The only thing that prevented the Cold War from going hot were the large nuclear stockpiles on either side.
Dr. Seuss writes children's books. However charming they may be, they aren't really relevant. Robert Heinlien's novels are far more interesting for this subject. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would be a good place to start.
I don't think that I could have said it any better. A gun can be a useful tool, used to assist farmers in helping keep their livestock and crops safe, but it isn't something for the average citizen. The police exist in order to protect civilians; we don't want them to be unemployed, now do we?raemiel said:
Usually, I abhor hunting. Growing up in a vegetarian family (religious reasons), I've eventually come to the conclusion that hunting is a terrible and selfish hobby.gamebrain89 said:
However, this only extends to recreational hunting. Despite my prior tone towards hunting, I'm glad that there are people who actually use the animal who's life they take. I suppose what I'm trying to say is:
Good on you.
Sorry, I know it's corny, but I can't think of anything else...
well if that's the case then i must apologize, as i was unaware the constitution had been revised. Also sorry the the misquote, i was unaware of the actual wording; that was just the general gist of the constitution as i saw it. thanks for clearing the matter up for me.
that being said i still stand by what i said in that guns should either banned or heavily restricted in the house.
p.s. as far as im concerned Gordon Brown is not my PM, there was no vote.
that being said i still stand by what i said in that guns should either banned or heavily restricted in the house.
p.s. as far as im concerned Gordon Brown is not my PM, there was no vote.
I live in rural missouri(sobs) and I have like 10 guns, so if some stupid homo breaks into the house I'm sure he'll find it quite like the V.A.T.S. system from fallout3 when I go all apeshit on his ass!
The problem with leaving the gun unsecured is that some stupid people leave the ammo lying right next to the gun, and it really isn't that hard to load a gun. I could load a .22 by myself when I was 6. So its always been recommended that guns be kept locked in a safe, or with a trigger or bolt lock at least, and ammuntion stored else where at all times, also preferably under lock or key, or at least out of sight on a shelf or in a cupboard that children have no chance of finding and getting into.Khell_Sennet post=18.75200.860664 said:
Thanks man, I don't agree with trophy hunting by itself either. Hunting just to get a trophy is screwed up if you ask me. Thats not a good enough reason to take an animals life. You don't know how many times I have come across fish lying out in the open, wasted, and remnants of animals, wasted for no good reason. I have come close to throwing those rotting fish into peoples tents for doing that kind of stupid needless bull@^#&.stompy said:
A little on both sides here, If you have a gun in your home, be responsible with it. This includes trigger locks and keeping it locked in a gun cabinet also.
I am more geared towards knives and swords. Wielded properly, they are just as deadly. Granted you cant immobilize someone at a distance, but if someone breaks into your home, they are now your play toy. You should know the layout of your home in the dark, use it to your advantage.
I am more geared towards knives and swords. Wielded properly, they are just as deadly. Granted you cant immobilize someone at a distance, but if someone breaks into your home, they are now your play toy. You should know the layout of your home in the dark, use it to your advantage.
I personally believe that, somewhere along the lines, Hollywood glorified guns to the point of 'mega-awesomes' and that people think "Ah-ha! Now if someone comes into my home, I'll make a quick, decisive shot at their leg or shoulder to halt their assault!"
The more likely outcome is that you miss, panic, and fire like wildfire and blow fifteen holes through the fucker before they have the chance to even close the window behind them. That, or shoot yourself. That, or shoot someone else because you're pissed off.
Personally, I know a lot of irrational and angry people. I would not like to think that, every time I go into a pub and someone gets pissy with me, there's a chance they'll pop home and come back with a 'tool' in the form of a 9mm through my throat.
I am very much anti-gun, because it seems the only whole 'I need a gun to survive from assault' thing in the US is so inappropriate. Granted, it happens to lesser degrees in some countries; such as a friend of mine from London telling me how 'everyone' in their school had a knife, so they brought one too. This meant that people, aged 12-17, were going around poking holes in each other in playground fights. Not everyone matures enough to realise this is the wrong outcome, and while a gun may protect me from the big-bad-thief in my area I'm probably not ever going to be harmed by if I took basic security measure, it also means random crazies on the streets, drunks, angry bastards, and drug-riddled loonies have access to a weapon that is meant only to blow chunks out of another living creature; and I sure as hell have been in more contact with the latter.
The more likely outcome is that you miss, panic, and fire like wildfire and blow fifteen holes through the fucker before they have the chance to even close the window behind them. That, or shoot yourself. That, or shoot someone else because you're pissed off.
Personally, I know a lot of irrational and angry people. I would not like to think that, every time I go into a pub and someone gets pissy with me, there's a chance they'll pop home and come back with a 'tool' in the form of a 9mm through my throat.
I am very much anti-gun, because it seems the only whole 'I need a gun to survive from assault' thing in the US is so inappropriate. Granted, it happens to lesser degrees in some countries; such as a friend of mine from London telling me how 'everyone' in their school had a knife, so they brought one too. This meant that people, aged 12-17, were going around poking holes in each other in playground fights. Not everyone matures enough to realise this is the wrong outcome, and while a gun may protect me from the big-bad-thief in my area I'm probably not ever going to be harmed by if I took basic security measure, it also means random crazies on the streets, drunks, angry bastards, and drug-riddled loonies have access to a weapon that is meant only to blow chunks out of another living creature; and I sure as hell have been in more contact with the latter.
Well that depends purely on how often you feel the need to shoot people.
...
Given that I don't trust most people with even basic decisions and tasks, I would argue that responsible use of a firearm is far out of reach for most people, not to mention completely unnecissary. They cause more problems than they solve so really there is never a situation where guns should be kept in a suburban home.
...
Given that I don't trust most people with even basic decisions and tasks, I would argue that responsible use of a firearm is far out of reach for most people, not to mention completely unnecissary. They cause more problems than they solve so really there is never a situation where guns should be kept in a suburban home.
I live in Australia, where gun control is very strict. Because there are so few guns in circulation, gun related crime is virtually nonexistent. The police have guns, and criminals don't, which gives the police a significant advantage. Nobody needs a gun for self-defense here, because nobody else has a gun to assault them with. Gun control works.
I think the point of this thread is more about whether a gun is a good tool for an individual in America, not about gun control as a whole, but living in a country where nobody needs a gun for self defense, I can't really answer that question >_>
I think the point of this thread is more about whether a gun is a good tool for an individual in America, not about gun control as a whole, but living in a country where nobody needs a gun for self defense, I can't really answer that question >_>
Had our forefathers not possessed firearms, our revolution would have died in its infancy, and it is in that spirit that Americans today should never doubt another citizens right to possess a firearm. There are laws, there is common sense, and there are exceptions. Taken together, those three items lead to legal, safe, and free ownership.
I can't believe how confused people are about the self-defense capabilities of the average person and the weapons they employ. Make no mistake: there is no alternative to a cold piece. Your tasers, your bare-hands, and your swords (reality check please?), though they can be employed in self-defense, are less effective by degrees than a firearm. There is no self-defense replacement for the firearm- except, of course, prevention, which leads me to my next point:
I don't care about reducing gun violence. What's the difference if the man was murdered with a gun or a knife? Reduce violence, I say. And, to my knowledge, there are no cases where gun control has had that result. Save the scare tactics. The way to reduce violence is to combat it's underlying causes: poverty, drug trafficking, and the like.
If you look at the areas where crime occurs, it is those factors that are always present. Gun control laws are not even a factor.
I don't care about reducing gun violence. What's the difference if the man was murdered with a gun or a knife? Reduce violence, I say. And, to my knowledge, there are no cases where gun control has had that result. Save the scare tactics. The way to reduce violence is to combat it's underlying causes: poverty, drug trafficking, and the like.
If you look at the areas where crime occurs, it is those factors that are always present. Gun control laws are not even a factor.
Dr. Seuss pares down issues to their essence. Heinlien's pretty unbalanced in his views. I read both Stranger in a Strange Land (unabridged) and Starship Troopers.ReepNeep said:
It's not about trusting the other guy. It's about knowing that someone is less likely to shoot you if you don't threaten them. There's a reason bank tellers are told to let the robbers take the money rather than shoot at them.
Okay, let's try this arguement for a change.
Part of the reason I want to pick up a CCW permit (get 'em while you can, obligatory jab at the new President-elect's past voting history) is because I would rather have it ready, and not need it, than need it, and not have it. The same is true of many other safety precautions that others take. You don't put on a seatbelt when you get into your car, expecting to get into a wreck. You put your seat belt on IN CASE you get into a wreck, and having the seat belt on might well save your life. By the same token, I wouldn't carry a pistol expecting to be jumped by a pack of gangbangers intent on cutting purses and throats (apologies to Yahtzee the Not-Half-Bad). I would carry a pistol IN CASE I find myself in a situation where diplomacy has failed. And I would keep a rifle and a shotgun in my house IN CASE some nut broke in with the intent of pilfering some of the stuff I own. Sure, that second part is not likely, given that I live in Suburbia (yuck), but since I plan to move closer to the city itself (as a side effect of having to drive a minivan that gets piss-poor gas mileage), the need may arise to stop someone who has entered my home unlawfully, while I call The Local Fuzz to come and pick him up. In all likelihood, I won't even need to pull the trigger.
Which brings up another interesting little factoid: The vast majority of cops in the US (I don't know numbers), go through their entire police careers without firing their duty weapon, and more than a few go through without ever needing to draw it. And yet, I don't hear anyone saying that cops should have their peashooters taken away. So why is it that people are all hot up about taking away *my* right to own a firearm, but nobody wants to take away the cops' iron?
When you come up with the answer, here's something else to chew on: Recently, I was out on the shooting range, trying to put two bullets into the same hole (and failing abysmally, but before you point and laugh at my crappy shooting, try it, and see how easy it is). Another guy came up, and started shooting next to me. As often happens at such places, a conversation was struck up. I learned that he was a police officer. The subject of gun control vs gun rights came up (both of us supporting the latter side), and he mentioned that I seemed to know what I was doing with the SIG-Sauer P226 (a popular weapon with police and military forces worldwide) I was shooting. He then mentioned that as he saw it, police officers should be backup to armed citizens when the Spit hits the Spam. I didn't ask his reasoning, because I had a pretty good idea of what it was: No matter what, whenever crap happens, the cops cannot be relied upon to stop what is happening in time. Police response times are measured in minutes. Fights, especially those involving firearms, are generally over in seconds. I would rather take a gun in hand over a cop on the phone, though I'd prefer both.
Part of the reason I want to pick up a CCW permit (get 'em while you can, obligatory jab at the new President-elect's past voting history) is because I would rather have it ready, and not need it, than need it, and not have it. The same is true of many other safety precautions that others take. You don't put on a seatbelt when you get into your car, expecting to get into a wreck. You put your seat belt on IN CASE you get into a wreck, and having the seat belt on might well save your life. By the same token, I wouldn't carry a pistol expecting to be jumped by a pack of gangbangers intent on cutting purses and throats (apologies to Yahtzee the Not-Half-Bad). I would carry a pistol IN CASE I find myself in a situation where diplomacy has failed. And I would keep a rifle and a shotgun in my house IN CASE some nut broke in with the intent of pilfering some of the stuff I own. Sure, that second part is not likely, given that I live in Suburbia (yuck), but since I plan to move closer to the city itself (as a side effect of having to drive a minivan that gets piss-poor gas mileage), the need may arise to stop someone who has entered my home unlawfully, while I call The Local Fuzz to come and pick him up. In all likelihood, I won't even need to pull the trigger.
Which brings up another interesting little factoid: The vast majority of cops in the US (I don't know numbers), go through their entire police careers without firing their duty weapon, and more than a few go through without ever needing to draw it. And yet, I don't hear anyone saying that cops should have their peashooters taken away. So why is it that people are all hot up about taking away *my* right to own a firearm, but nobody wants to take away the cops' iron?
When you come up with the answer, here's something else to chew on: Recently, I was out on the shooting range, trying to put two bullets into the same hole (and failing abysmally, but before you point and laugh at my crappy shooting, try it, and see how easy it is). Another guy came up, and started shooting next to me. As often happens at such places, a conversation was struck up. I learned that he was a police officer. The subject of gun control vs gun rights came up (both of us supporting the latter side), and he mentioned that I seemed to know what I was doing with the SIG-Sauer P226 (a popular weapon with police and military forces worldwide) I was shooting. He then mentioned that as he saw it, police officers should be backup to armed citizens when the Spit hits the Spam. I didn't ask his reasoning, because I had a pretty good idea of what it was: No matter what, whenever crap happens, the cops cannot be relied upon to stop what is happening in time. Police response times are measured in minutes. Fights, especially those involving firearms, are generally over in seconds. I would rather take a gun in hand over a cop on the phone, though I'd prefer both.
Here in England, the majority of people have never even seen a gun, except perhaps a deactivated or replica, let alone held or fired one.
Me personally - I have, being as I've lived in more than a few countries wherein gun ownership is perfectly legal and acceptable (Admittedly, it is in the UK for shotguns, but frankly, it would be an exercise in patience and depth of funding to attempt to get a license and the gun itself; we don't have many gun shops and you need a spotless criminal record, medical history, etc, to obtain the license anyway.)
So, you could say I have more experience with firearms than most of the law-abiding UK; especially with hunting rifles. As much as I love to shoot, whether targets or hunting (and yes, I ate it.) I do not think a gun is a useful thing to have inside a house, in the UK at least. In all the other countries I have lived (ukraine, poland, belarus, norway, scotland) I would have said the same. I genuinely do not believe someone would have broken in with a gun. In the UK we do have gun crime, but knife crime is far more prevalent due to easy access.
Yes, I do keep a katana near my bed, and I do know how to use it, but frankly, I think the swords mere presence would scare of the majority of burglars. It's unlikely I'd ever have to use it. In fact, the one time I was even burgled, as soon as me and my housemate woke, grabbed a bat each and walked downstairs, they dropped everything and fled.
Obviously, I dunno about the USA, where gun crime is a day to day thing in some areas; we just don't have it that bad. I don't think we'd need a gun to defend ourselves. Certainly, if it were legal in the UK I would own a simple hunting rifle, but that's merely because I love to shoot as opposed to a fear of my life being taken.
Me personally - I have, being as I've lived in more than a few countries wherein gun ownership is perfectly legal and acceptable (Admittedly, it is in the UK for shotguns, but frankly, it would be an exercise in patience and depth of funding to attempt to get a license and the gun itself; we don't have many gun shops and you need a spotless criminal record, medical history, etc, to obtain the license anyway.)
So, you could say I have more experience with firearms than most of the law-abiding UK; especially with hunting rifles. As much as I love to shoot, whether targets or hunting (and yes, I ate it.) I do not think a gun is a useful thing to have inside a house, in the UK at least. In all the other countries I have lived (ukraine, poland, belarus, norway, scotland) I would have said the same. I genuinely do not believe someone would have broken in with a gun. In the UK we do have gun crime, but knife crime is far more prevalent due to easy access.
Yes, I do keep a katana near my bed, and I do know how to use it, but frankly, I think the swords mere presence would scare of the majority of burglars. It's unlikely I'd ever have to use it. In fact, the one time I was even burgled, as soon as me and my housemate woke, grabbed a bat each and walked downstairs, they dropped everything and fled.
Obviously, I dunno about the USA, where gun crime is a day to day thing in some areas; we just don't have it that bad. I don't think we'd need a gun to defend ourselves. Certainly, if it were legal in the UK I would own a simple hunting rifle, but that's merely because I love to shoot as opposed to a fear of my life being taken.