• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you want a gun in this situation?

Would you want a gun in this situation?

  • I am anti-gun, and I would want a gun.

    Votes: 2 3.4%

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

    Votes: 4 6.8%

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

    Votes: 51 86.4%

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

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • Total voters
    59
jimbo said:
We argue against this because the facts show otherwise. Aurora, Newtown, Va Tech, Gifford, Columbine, all were gun free zones. The highest crime and murder rate areas in the US are all gun free areas.
Click to expand...

To me, this is absurd as saying Kabul should have been safe because there was a no-gun policy, yet it was surrounded by Afghanistan. Chicago isn't really gun-free if you can drive half an hour to Wisconsin and buy an AK-47. This is flawed and absurd reasoning to suggest such.

Britain, however, truly is gun-free, by and large, because we've outlawed it everywhere and have reasonable control of our borders. If Chicago were to institute border controls in and out of the city, and all guns eradicated from it, I have no doubt gun crime in Chicago would drop precipitously.

If the United States as a whole were to have taken the same measures as Britain, perhaps the literally hundreds of thousands of your citizens killed in gun crime over the last decades would still be alive.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?

The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Click to expand...

In that scenario, if the armed men wanted to kill you, you'd probably be dead before you even woke up.

If you want to prevent that scenario....don't deal drugs.
 
year2late said:
With the Heimlich situation, the point is if help is not on its way while you are attempting to clear, it is possible to end up with a revived but severely brain damaged individual.

So it is a better idea to have someone call for help while you are acting. If you are alone and can just dial 911 and leave the line active, they will come.

It is not a good idea to wait until you have exhausted your own personal abilities and then call for help. The lag time will kill you.
Click to expand...

Is your argument that you should call 911 in addition to your own, armed defense...or instead of?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
To me, this is absurd as saying Kabul should have been safe because there was a no-gun policy, yet it was surrounded by Afghanistan. Chicago isn't really gun-free if you can drive half an hour to Wisconsin and buy an AK-47. This is flawed and absurd reasoning to suggest such.

Britain, however, truly is gun-free, by and large, because we've outlawed it everywhere and have reasonable control of our borders. If Chicago were to institute border controls in and out of the city, and all guns eradicated from it, I have no doubt gun crime in Chicago would drop precipitously.

If the United States as a whole were to have taken the same measures as Britain, perhaps the literally hundreds of thousands of your citizens killed in gun crime over the last decades would still be alive.
Click to expand...

You believe that you can curb supply without curbing demand. That's adorable.

Cocaine is very prevalent in the United States. Can you tell me which cities and/or states that you can possess cocaine legally?
 
TwoWaysToDefendYourself.jpg
 
Gipper said:
You believe that you can curb supply without curbing demand. That's adorable.

Cocaine is very prevalent in the United States. Can you tell me which cities and/or states that you can possess cocaine legally?
Click to expand...

We have curbed demand, as well, through our education system, welfare programmes, and social outreach.

Tell me, why is gun crime so low in the UK if everyone just naturally wants to murder each-other with Uzis every chance they get?
 
Ad_Captandum said:
We have curbed demand, as well, through our education system, welfare programmes, and social outreach.

Tell me, why is gun crime so low in the UK if everyone just naturally wants to murder each-other with Uzis every chance they get?
Click to expand...

Yes, "gun crime" is low but crime isn't; They just don't have the guns which make killing easier, but people will still find a way.

I'm less concerned with reducing "gun violence" than I am reducing ALL violence.

Ad_Captandum said:
perhaps the literally hundreds of thousands of your citizens killed in gun crime over the last decades would still be alive.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't, they'd just be killed by another means. Please take a look at crime statistics, more people are killed with hammers than guns. Not having a gun isn't going to stop someone motivated enough to kill.
 
radioman said:
What????
Waste time dialing 911....when you should be bombarding the miscreants with hot lead?
No way.
You should only be talking to the perps.
Phrases such as...."Do you feel lucky, punk?"...or..."Go ahead, make my day"...are much more effective than calling 911.
Click to expand...
I'd let the wife talk them to death if I don't kill them out right.
 
jimbo said:
If armed men break into your house, it is already too late to avoid the confrontation. What would happen if you "dropped one" is a matter of speculation. There are several possible possibilities. Confronted with force, the bad guys may just move on. After one is dropped, they may decide to call it a night. There is also the possibility that you may get them all.
Even if you do not confront, there is still a high likelihood that you may be slaughtered.
Click to expand...

keeping your family alive would be greatly increased by avoiding the gunfight.
 
Lachean said:
Yes, "gun crime" is low but crime isn't; They just don't have the guns which make killing easier, but people will still find a way.

I'm less concerned with reducing "gun violence" than I am reducing ALL violence.



No they wouldn't, they'd just be killed by another means. Please take a look at crime statistics, more people are killed with hammers than guns. Not having a gun isn't going to stop someone motivated enough to kill.
Click to expand...

Violent crime is indeed significantly lower overall in the UK than the US. I'm not blaming that entirely on guns -- I think it's much more socioeconomic factors that cause this.

Either way, you're way more likely to die from being shot than from being stabbed. As well, it is much harder to stab to death an innocent schoolgirl in the line of fire than it is to shoot her to death.

These are real, serious examples of how guns can be and are dangerous by their very nature, and not just because of the people using them. Surely you cannot outright deny this?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?

The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Click to expand...


Good luck getting any of the anti-gun nuts to answer.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
Violent crime is indeed significantly lower overall in the UK than the US. I'm not blaming that entirely on guns -- I think it's much more socioeconomic factors that cause this.

Either way, you're way more likely to die from being shot than from being stabbed. As well, it is much harder to stab to death an innocent schoolgirl in the line of fire than it is to shoot her to death.
Click to expand...

Its clear you've not looked at the statistics, but you have gotten one thing right. Guns do make killing easier.

Ad_Captandum said:
These are real, serious examples of how guns can be and are dangerous by their very nature, and not just because of the people using them. Surely you cannot outright deny this?
Click to expand...

Of course not, I should hope my guns are dangerous; Else I'd be in for quite a surprise should I ever have to use one in self defense... for the second time.

What the hell is the point of a harmless gun? Please look at the statistics, violence crime is on the decline despite increasing guns in the population. In the hands of a good person, guns are dangerous to CRIMINALS.

Ya know whats more dangerous than guns though? Cars and swimming pools.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?

The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Click to expand...

i don't know if you ever heard this story but its close to yours, and i remember ..... HESTON TALKING ABOUT IT

during the riots of LA.....the late actor Charlton Heston, was called on the phone by several of his liberal friends of Hollywood, who asked him he they could borrow a firearm from him during that time...which Heston had a huge collection of arms.
 
Redress said:
I do not live in fear of unlikely events happening.
Click to expand...

These do not look like unlikely events(just in case this was not brought up in the other posts on this thread).

HomeInvasion.jpg
 
Gipper said:
Is your argument that you should call 911 in addition to your own, armed defense...or instead of?
Click to expand...

My argument (of course) that if possible you call 911 AND defend yourself.

If you have access to a phone. Dial 911. You do not even need to stay on the line - although obviously preferable to give them some info.
 
Redress said:
I am not answering it in the way you want. You asked a stupid question. I pointed that out. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're simply refusing to answer the question and blaming the question for refusing to answer, which is an answer in and of itself.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, you're simply refusing to answer the question and blaming the question for refusing to answer, which is an answer in and of itself.
Click to expand...

You asked a question anti-2nd amendment zealots refuse to answer.Because anyone with a brain knows that they want a if they are in that situation. Because a cop can't fit in your pocket. Does anyone really want to wait 10,15,20, 30 minutes of more for the police to show up when a home invader is inside your home?**** no people do not want to wait that long when their life is at stake.
 
jamesrage said:
You asked a question anti-2nd amendment zealots refuse to answer.Because anyone with a brain knows that they want a if they are in that situation. Because a cop can't fit in your pocket. Does anyone really want to wait 10,15,20, 30 minutes of more for the police to show up when a home invader is inside your home?**** no people do not want to wait that long when their life is at stake.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct. There are a lot more than 2 anti-gunners that have been on this thread. The others simply refused to answer a simple yes or no question because how difficult it makes their rationale. "Of course I would want a gun at that moment in time, but that doesn't mean everyone else should have that same ability."
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?

The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Click to expand...

This is why I have loud alarms on all my outside doors and all my accessible windows - that alone will drive away almost all intruders. It doesn't matter if they cut my phones because my cell's always with me, and the police are only minutes away. They arrived in four minutes when we had a prowler late last year. If the intruders come in the house anyway, I'll toss my mattress against the door - with the way our bedroom is set up, it would be very difficult for them to get past that - and wait for the police. No problem.

Y'know, I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. What is it about gun nuts that they assume that if someone doesn't want to have guns, that they're automatically out to take everyone's guns away? From the 1970's to today, the percentage of Americans owning guns has dropped from 50% to 35% - and this is mostly just people deciding that they don't want guns.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?

The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Click to expand...

And I didn't vote because I didn't see an option saying, "I don't want a gun, but I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns". It's not clearly defined what you believe is 'pro-gun' or 'anti-gun'.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
This is why I have loud alarms on all my outside doors and all my accessible windows - that alone will drive away almost all intruders. It doesn't matter if they cut my phones because my cell's always with me, and the police are only minutes away. They arrived in four minutes when we had a prowler late last year. If the intruders come in the house anyway, I'll toss my mattress against the door - with the way our bedroom is set up, it would be very difficult for them to get past that - and wait for the police. No problem.

Y'know, I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. What is it about gun nuts that they assume that if someone doesn't want to have guns, that they're automatically out to take everyone's guns away? From the 1970's to today, the percentage of Americans owning guns has dropped from 50% to 35% - and this is mostly just people deciding that they don't want guns.
Click to expand...

Well that's not what I'm assuming at all. I didn't make any statement saying "If you don't want a gun you oppose everyone else getting one." My poll was more directed to the rabid anti-gun types that do want to ban or massively control the distribution of fire arms.

The scenario is completely arbitrary. My only point is that if their lives were in danger and a gun could help, anti-gunners would immediately abandon their beliefs and do what it took to protect their family and self.

Based on what you told me, you're "Pro-gun, but I wouldn't want a gun".
 
I'm in the middle of the gun debate, I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think that means that anyone should be able to buy a weapon capable of killing dozens of people within just a few minutes.

I don't own a gun for both philosophical and practical reasons. As the statistics I previously posted show, a home invasion robbery is highly unlikely, and violence by the robber is highly unlikely. My dog's barking, among our other security measures, would make such a crime even more unlikely. Even if I had a gun I would not shoot a burglar unless he threatened me or refused to leave.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Well that's not what I'm assuming at all. I didn't make any statement saying "If you don't want a gun you oppose everyone else getting one." My poll was more directed to the rabid anti-gun types that do want to ban or massively control the distribution of fire arms.

The scenario is completely arbitrary. My only point is that if their lives were in danger and a gun could help, anti-gunners would immediately abandon their beliefs and do what it took to protect their family and self.

Based on what you told me, you're "Pro-gun, but I wouldn't want a gun".
Click to expand...

I understand. I've often said that while I don't want a gun, if they banned guns, I'd be first in line to buy one illegally. That said, I am strongly against the sale of assault rifles and sniper rifles - there's simply no need - much less any good use - for such in the civilian world. Ditto for long ammo clips and armor-piercing ammo. Besides, if one is really concerned about home defense, the best weapon is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, that the burglar can hear that unmistakable sound...and a cell phone with which to call the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom