View Poll Results: Would you want a gun in this situation?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am anti-gun, and I would want a gun.

    2 2.94%
  • I am anti-gun, and I wouldn't want a gun.

    6 8.82%
  • I am pro-gun, and I would want a gun.

    58 85.29%
  • I am pro-gun, and I wouldn't want a gun.

    2 2.94%
Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 510

Thread: Would you want a gun in this situation?

  1. #461
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Yes, this is true. One is not always granted these options however.
    my point is not that is should be the only option, but many seem to think that the first option if they have a gun is to start firing. I strongly disagree with that. I own a few guns. I will use them if needed. But I will use them to protect my family when no other option is present. Leaving, especially with a group of attackers, is option 1.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  2. #462
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    The scenario is arbitrary....
    It's not arbitrary. It's absurd, it's deliberately manipulative, it's explicitly designed to bypass any possible rational explanation or argument.

    I mean, really. How does this work? Will this pack of thugs call me on the phone and say "There's six of us, we're in your house, we have loaded AK-47's, and we're going to rape all the women. But I bet if you shoot at us, we'll leave!"

    This scenario also glides past the fact that 60% of all crimes are committed by a family member or an acquaintance; that 79% of all murders where the offender is identified are committed by family, friends or acquaintances; that half of assaults and homicides are committed by a spouse; how suicide is the leading cause of violent death in the US.

    I.e. the rates of hyper-violent home invasions is almost certainly so low that it's a poor justification for owning a gun.


    if you knew they were there to rape your wife and daughter would you want to do everything in your power to stop it?
    If I'm outnumbered and outgunned, it is irrational to assume that owning a gun will actually make me safer, let alone change the outcome. Imagining that you can go all Rambo and defend your home against multiple assailants sounds about as unrealistic as the scenario itself.

    And again, the OP's scenario incorrectly and insultingly implies that people who are pro-gun-control have never been threatened by any criminal act, and merely thinking about an awful situation would "make them think right." I can say, at least for myself, that none of the violent situations I've ever been in would turn out better if I was holding a gun at those very moments.


    The point is, people who want to ban guns because "they'll statistically never use them" are forgetting about the people who do need them every single day to defend their lives and the lives of their family. Do you have a problem with that?
    I have a problem with relying on hyperbole and manipulative counterfactuals to make a point.

    If you can prove to me that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, let's see the evidence. Not anecdotes, not ridiculous scenarios. Evidence.

  3. #463
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,561

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's not arbitrary. It's absurd, it's deliberately manipulative, it's explicitly designed to bypass any possible rational explanation or argument.

    I mean, really. How does this work? Will this pack of thugs call me on the phone and say "There's six of us, we're in your house, we have loaded AK-47's, and we're going to rape all the women. But I bet if you shoot at us, we'll leave!"

    This scenario also glides past the fact that 60% of all crimes are committed by a family member or an acquaintance; that 79% of all murders where the offender is identified are committed by family, friends or acquaintances; that half of assaults and homicides are committed by a spouse; how suicide is the leading cause of violent death in the US.

    I.e. the rates of hyper-violent home invasions is almost certainly so low that it's a poor justification for owning a gun.



    If I'm outnumbered and outgunned, it is irrational to assume that owning a gun will actually make me safer, let alone change the outcome. Imagining that you can go all Rambo and defend your home against multiple assailants sounds about as unrealistic as the scenario itself.

    And again, the OP's scenario incorrectly and insultingly implies that people who are pro-gun-control have never been threatened by any criminal act, and merely thinking about an awful situation would "make them think right." I can say, at least for myself, that none of the violent situations I've ever been in would turn out better if I was holding a gun at those very moments.



    I have a problem with relying on hyperbole and manipulative counterfactuals to make a point.

    If you can prove to me that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, let's see the evidence. Not anecdotes, not ridiculous scenarios. Evidence.
    the evidence doesn't prove either. It doesn't prove everyone is safer if everyone is armed and it certainly doesn't prove that we'd be safer if only the government and criminals were armed (i.e. what happens when guns are banned).

    so given that impasse, we are better off not imposing laws that infringe on the right of free citizens to be armed. so if you are afraid to have a gun then that is your choice and I will support your right to be unarmed. And we request that you don't try to prevent us from being armed



  4. #464
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,662

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    my point is not that is should be the only option, but many seem to think that the first option if they have a gun is to start firing. I strongly disagree with that. I own a few guns. I will use them if needed. But I will use them to protect my family when no other option is present. Leaving, especially with a group of attackers, is option 1.
    It seems like you know nothing about preparation and tactics. No one said they'd just start firing....(did they? it's been alot of pages). It's about how they would counter the invasion and if they'd want a gun to do so. It shows alot of ignorance of tactics if you think that means just starting shooting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #465
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's not arbitrary. It's absurd, it's deliberately manipulative, it's explicitly designed to bypass any possible rational explanation or argument.

    I mean, really. How does this work? Will this pack of thugs call me on the phone and say "There's six of us, we're in your house, we have loaded AK-47's, and we're going to rape all the women. But I bet if you shoot at us, we'll leave!"

    This scenario also glides past the fact that 60% of all crimes are committed by a family member or an acquaintance; that 79% of all murders where the offender is identified are committed by family, friends or acquaintances; that half of assaults and homicides are committed by a spouse; how suicide is the leading cause of violent death in the US.

    I.e. the rates of hyper-violent home invasions is almost certainly so low that it's a poor justification for owning a gun.



    If I'm outnumbered and outgunned, it is irrational to assume that owning a gun will actually make me safer, let alone change the outcome. Imagining that you can go all Rambo and defend your home against multiple assailants sounds about as unrealistic as the scenario itself.

    And again, the OP's scenario incorrectly and insultingly implies that people who are pro-gun-control have never been threatened by any criminal act, and merely thinking about an awful situation would "make them think right." I can say, at least for myself, that none of the violent situations I've ever been in would turn out better if I was holding a gun at those very moments.



    I have a problem with relying on hyperbole and manipulative counterfactuals to make a point.

    If you can prove to me that widespread gun ownership makes people safer, let's see the evidence. Not anecdotes, not ridiculous scenarios. Evidence.
    Sounds like you've created your own ridiculous hyperbole. The OP said armed men. That could be 2 junkies with a gun, or 100 men with ak-47's. Just as I stated, it's completely arbitrary. You coming along and stating that something that happens every day in just about every single country around the world is "ridiculous hyperbole", just makes you look like an idiot.

    The point of the OP was to try to see if people who so feverishly want to ban and control guns would ever want one for themselves. One anti-gunner even stated that a raped wife was no big deal as long as he was ok. Maybe that's your view?

    There is zero correlation between gun ownership rate and overall murder rate. Otherwise West Virginia would have a higher murder rate than Chicago, and Switzerland would have a higher murder rate than Germany. Neither of which hold an ounce of truth. Violent crime is correlated with poverty, not through lawful exercise of one's rights.

    If you'd like to ban all guns because you think the bill of rights is silly, the burden of proof is on you. The rest of us enjoy the right to defend our families were the situation to arise. In retrospect, should I have worded the OP poll differently to ask if there was any situation anti-gunners would want a gun? Yeah, probably, but then again, incessant whiners like yourself would still show up and find a way to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 05-19-14 at 04:23 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  6. #466
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,610

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i have posted your failings on the constitution enough i could create a small book on them...
    Then please do.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #467
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,610

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no I didn't fail, I will produce them now since you want proof of your constitutional failures....here is your latest big constitutional error








    Article 1 section 2 clause 3---Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


    Article 1 section 9 clause 4--No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


    Definition of CAPITATION

    1: a direct uniform tax imposed on each head or person

    Capitation Tax

    An assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth.

    Since it is a tax upon the individual, and not upon merchandise, a capitation tax is frequently labeled a head tax
    Let us flush all of your post that IS NOT part of the US Constitution. here is what the actual Constitution says

    Section 8.

    The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



    It is right there for you direct from the Constitution itself - not my explaination - not your explaination - not the explaination of some long dead individual..... direct words from the Constitution. And that supports what I told you in the first place that you took such offense to and said was incorrect:

    Where do you get the absurd idea that the founders endorsed a system with no compulsory taxation? Just where did this self imposed delusion bubble up from?
    Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. And paragraph 18 of that same section gives them the power to make all laws necessary to carry out and execute that power.
    For anyone to pretend that the Constitution does not give the Congress the power to tax and make them compulsory is a mental delusion that makes one detached from reality.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #468
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Sounds like you've created your own ridiculous hyperbole. The OP said armed men.
    Yes, that means plural, and means I'm outnumbered.

    That also doesn't change your intent, namely to scare the crap out of those who advocate gun control, rather than present a rational analysis of the situation.


    You coming along and stating that something that happens every day in just about every single country around the world is "ridiculous hyperbole", just makes you look like an idiot.
    You certainly did not stipulate that you were talking about a war zone.

    Nor does that necessarily help. Let's say the year is 2002, you own an AK-47 (a common occurrence, as gun ownership rates were quite high during Hussein's regime), and a bunch of heavily American soldiers burst into your house. You might conclude that they will arrest you and ship you off to Abu Ghraib. Do you open fire on them? Are you going to change your mind about gun ownership because of that experience? Should you change your mind about gun ownership because of that experience?

    In addition, There is no statistical evidence that I know of to indicate that a home invasion, by armed men, with a specific intent to cause grievous harm (as opposed to robbery) is a highly likely circumstance in the US, or in most nations.

    And yet again: The evidence clearly shows that the "everyday occurrence" of violent deaths is suicide, followed by people being harmed by their friends, family, spouse or acquaintance. "Stranger danger" is vastly overstated, and not a good justification for liberal gun ownership policies.



    The point of the OP was to try to see if people who so feverishly want to ban and control guns would ever want one for themselves.
    1) I answered that question in my first post in this thread. For me, the answer is clearly NO.
    2) You erroneously assume that people who are for gun control have never had to face a violent situation.
    3) You're basically agreeing with me. You don't want to rationally discuss the situation, it's to present an emotionally manipulative hypothetical.

    Or, think of it this way: Let's say there is a drug which can reduce the probability of developing cancer by 5%, but it increases the chances of a heart attack by 100%. Is the best way to analyze that situation to discuss heart-wrenching stories about people with cancer? No. The proper thing to do is to figure out whether the drug is still beneficial to specific individuals, whether its negative effects can be mitigated, and whether sufficient restrictions can be put in place to prevent its misuse.


    There is zero correlation between gun ownership rate and overall murder rate.
    BU Researcher Finds Correlation Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide » Public Relations | Blog Archive | Boston University
    Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard School of Public Health
    No, Chicago Isn't Proof That Gun Regulation Doesn't Work | ThinkProgress

    I won't say it's a total lock, as it's a complicated issue with many cultural and legal aspects. But it's good enough to make a reasonable claim to that effect.


    If you'd like to ban all guns because you think the bill of rights is silly
    Talk about "ridiculous hyperbole." I certainly never said I wanted to "ban all guns" or that the "Bill of Rights is silly."

    In fact, as I hinted earlier, your poll creates a false dilemma. We can advocate for restrictions on gun ownership, while still accepting the use of guns for target shooting, hunting and protection. You can certainly advocate for a 10-round magazine limit for civilians, without "secretly" wanting to ban all guns. "Less guns, less powerful guns and smaller magazines" does not mean "ban all guns for everyone forever!"


    The rest of us enjoy the right to defend our families were the situation to arise.
    Or, perhaps you are putting your family at risk by having a gun in the household, and you are exaggerating your need to protect your family.


    In retrospect, should I have worded the OP poll differently to ask if there was any situation anti-gunners would want a gun? Yeah, probably, but then again, incessant whiners like yourself would still show up and find a way to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.
    Again: I explicitly stated, in my first post in this thread, that my answer was no. I've been in violent situations, and have not concluded on that basis that owning a gun would have improved the situation.

    It is highly unlikely you could craft any hypothetical that would make me personally want to own a gun; and whatever situation that might be, will be so unlikely and esoteric that it won't change my mind about wanting to own a gun.

    Or, to put it another way: If I had a rational reason or reasons to believe that owning a gun would improve my safety, why wouldn't I own one already?

  9. #469
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Let us flush all of your post that IS NOT part of the US Constitution. here is what the actual Constitution says

    Section 8.

    The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



    It is right there for you direct from the Constitution itself - not my explaination - not your explaination - not the explaination of some long dead individual..... direct words from the Constitution. And that supports what I told you in the first place that you took such offense to and said was incorrect:



    For anyone to pretend that the Constitution does not give the Congress the power to tax and make them compulsory is a mental delusion that makes one detached from reality.
    POWER

    DUTY

    The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


    congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, however when this clause was written it applied to states only,...it was unconstitutional to lay a direct tax on the people...per the constitution.

    you believed this clause gave the congress the power to directly tax people, which was incorrect.

  10. #470
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,610

    Re: Would you want a gun in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    POWER

    DUTY

    The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


    congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, however when this clause was written it applied to states only,...it was unconstitutional to lay a direct tax on the people...per the constitution.

    you believed this clause gave the congress the power to directly tax people, which was incorrect.
    You do make this crap up as you go along don't you? If not people paying taxes who the hell is going to pay them - animals? insects? land itself? You are simply being willfully blind if you do not think the power to levy a tax is not being paid by people which makes all taxes taxes on people.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •