• 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
I don't live where that is at all likely. You might as well be asking what I'd do in the zombie apocalypse.
 
the scenario:

It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"

Do you want a gun in this scenario?
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

what is the limit on the number of people you could kill that you would allow someone to buy in terms of a gun within a few minutes.
 
Deuce said:
the scenario:

It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"

Do you want a gun in this scenario?
Click to expand...


Lets be more realistic and it turns out to be a robber. BTW ask any cop or DA-if you break into a home in the night time it is presumed you do so with the intent of confronting occupants. Anyone who shoots without first identifying their target is a moron and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

By assault rifle, which fire full automatic, I assume you mean assault weapon, which is a term used to describe skeery looking sporting weapons which do not fire full automatic. One example is the Ruger 10/22, the rifle often used to teach kids gun safety and marksmanship. Since it can be made to look skeery with a few bolt on parts, it is an assault weapon. The civilian version of sniper rifles costs in the $5000 up range, weigh in the 35 to 50 lb range, and ammo is about $5/round. Neither of these is a desirable weapon for a criminal, so you must have some other reason for strongly disliking them. In addition, neither is exactly suitable for concealed carry. Which is also a legitimate and legal use.

I don't buy the argument that a 12 gauge pump is the best home defense weapon, but if that is your choice, go for it. A 12 gauge is better than no weapon at all.

Your other point, no need, no good use, is just not valid, although it is often a talking point among gun banners. The same could be said of your preferred weapon, the cell phone.
 
Redress said:
I don't prepare for getting hit by lightning either. I don't prepare for lots of unlikely events. You don't either. No one does. At least be honest.
Click to expand...

Home invasions are 1) far more frequent then lightning strikes

2) the tools to repel home invasion (firearms, motion lights, cameras, etc) are cheaper and easier to use then anything you'd have to craft to keep yourself completely safe from lightning
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

and last night you were claiming you were pro gun. "assault rifle" is the single most 2A relevant weapon going based on Miller.

Sniper rifle-define sniper rifle without banning

1) varmint rifle
2) big game hunting rifle
3) national match target rifle

see, you are militantly anti gun

what is LONG AMMO CLIP

people who understand firearms would call them extra capacity MAGAZINES

I consider a LONG magazine to be say 40 rounds for an AR 15 or 33 rounds for GLOCK

the standard issue magazine is NORMAL CAPACITY meaning 17 Round Glock, AR 15 30 rounds or 15 rounds for a Beretta M9
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

As to the bolded above; what about lighter and a gasoline can?
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets be more realistic and it turns out to be a robber. BTW ask any cop or DA-if you break into a home in the night time it is presumed you do so with the intent of confronting occupants. Anyone who shoots without first identifying their target is a moron and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law
Click to expand...

You've inserted the "break into" part into my scenario. Nobody broke in. Read again.

The OP scenario involved precognition, so let's not talk about realism.
 
Deuce said:
You've inserted the "break into" part into my scenario. Nobody broke in. Read again.

The OP scenario involved precognition, so let's not talk about realism.
Click to expand...

that's a stupid scenario then. I didn't say the robber broke in. I was merely changing to another point. maybe you left the door open and the robber walked in
 
Deuce said:
the scenario:

It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"

Do you want a gun in this scenario?
Click to expand...

Yes, because I would followed the weapon safety rule " keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire."
 
Deuce said:
the scenario:

It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"

Do you want a gun in this scenario?
Click to expand...

I do because I have the sense God gave a dog to know the difference between a burglar and someone making a sandwich.
 
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...

l am anti gun but l support defensive gun use in such cases
 
Deuce said:
the scenario:

It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"

Do you want a gun in this scenario?
Click to expand...

Home defense basics include first checking on home occupants, positive target recognition and not firing in panic at "shadows". Nobody gets near, much less into, into my home without first alerting one or both dogs, absent that "first alert" the intruder assumption is not made. Yes, I'll keep my gun in this scenario.
 
I don't think anybody is really as "anti gun" as you think they are.
 
jimbo said:
By assault rifle, which fire full automatic, I assume you mean assault weapon, which is a term used to describe skeery looking sporting weapons which do not fire full automatic. One example is the Ruger 10/22, the rifle often used to teach kids gun safety and marksmanship. Since it can be made to look skeery with a few bolt on parts, it is an assault weapon. The civilian version of sniper rifles costs in the $5000 up range, weigh in the 35 to 50 lb range, and ammo is about $5/round. Neither of these is a desirable weapon for a criminal, so you must have some other reason for strongly disliking them. In addition, neither is exactly suitable for concealed carry. Which is also a legitimate and legal use.

I don't buy the argument that a 12 gauge pump is the best home defense weapon, but if that is your choice, go for it. A 12 gauge is better than no weapon at all.

Your other point, no need, no good use, is just not valid, although it is often a talking point among gun banners. The same could be said of your preferred weapon, the cell phone.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not referring to automatic weapons. I'm referring to weapons like the AR-15 that fires a .223 - which bullet is not bigger in circumference than a .22 bullet...but the muzzle velocity is much higher, and so does much more damage. There's no NEED for such a weapon in the civilian world. Same thing for modern sniper rifles - there's no NEED for them. There is no real need for a good, law-abiding citizen to have either one. Neither one is really the most suitable for home defense - that is, unless you see the perps a half-klick away and you somehow already know that they ARE going to invade your home. Otherwise, there's no real need for them...

...but sniper rifles are great if you're a bad guy and you want to off some victim from a half mile away.

As far as the .12 gauge goes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Sure, if you and all your family is well-trained using a rifle or handguns, and if they don't have a problem aiming properly in very high-stress situations, sure, go for it. But I would have to think not just for myself and my weapons training, but more importantly for my wife who might have to use it, and she's had very little weapons training. Your reply might be, "well, get her more training!" My reply to that would be that we've got better, more important things to spend our time and money on. Not everybody builds their lives around firearms or has any desire to do so.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, I'm not referring to automatic weapons. I'm referring to weapons like the AR-15 that fires a .223 - which bullet is not bigger in circumference than a .22 bullet...but the muzzle velocity is much higher, and so does much more damage. There's no NEED for such a weapon in the civilian world. Same thing for modern sniper rifles - there's no NEED for them. There is no real need for a good, law-abiding citizen to have either one. Neither one is really the most suitable for home defense - that is, unless you see the perps a half-klick away and you somehow already know that they ARE going to invade your home. Otherwise, there's no real need for them...

...but sniper rifles are great if you're a bad guy and you want to off some victim from a half mile away.

As far as the .12 gauge goes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Sure, if you and all your family is well-trained using a rifle or handguns, and if they don't have a problem aiming properly in very high-stress situations, sure, go for it. But I would have to think not just for myself and my weapons training, but more importantly for my wife who might have to use it, and she's had very little weapons training. Your reply might be, "well, get her more training!" My reply to that would be that we've got better, more important things to spend our time and money on. Not everybody builds their lives around firearms or has any desire to do so.
Click to expand...

Your arguments get less valid the more you repeat them. It was you who misused the term assault rifle. FWIW, the AR 15 style comes in a wide variety of calibers.

Likewise your dislike for the sniper rifle. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded a home or held up a convenience store with a $5000, 50 pound, sniper rifle, especially from a half mile away. Banning them would result in zero reduction in crime.

You do seem to be hung up on need. But that is not a valid argument, either legally of from a pure enjoyment perspective. I have lots of things I don't need. And the 2nd makes no mention of need. I mentioned your cell phone, since you consider it a weapon. No one needs a cell phone. I have no desire to ban them based on need.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, I'm not referring to automatic weapons. I'm referring to weapons like the AR-15 that fires a .223 - which bullet is not bigger in circumference than a .22 bullet...but the muzzle velocity is much higher, and so does much more damage. There's no NEED for such a weapon in the civilian world. Same thing for modern sniper rifles - there's no NEED for them. There is no real need for a good, law-abiding citizen to have either one. Neither one is really the most suitable for home defense - that is, unless you see the perps a half-klick away and you somehow already know that they ARE going to invade your home. Otherwise, there's no real need for them...

...but sniper rifles are great if you're a bad guy and you want to off some victim from a half mile away.

As far as the .12 gauge goes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Sure, if you and all your family is well-trained using a rifle or handguns, and if they don't have a problem aiming properly in very high-stress situations, sure, go for it. But I would have to think not just for myself and my weapons training, but more importantly for my wife who might have to use it, and she's had very little weapons training. Your reply might be, "well, get her more training!" My reply to that would be that we've got better, more important things to spend our time and money on. Not everybody builds their lives around firearms or has any desire to do so.
Click to expand...

so what sort of bullet should we hunt elk with

you are proving your are radically anti gun

how do you ban a 223 without banning ANY centerfire hunting cartridges.


this is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever seen

You are in NO POSITION to tell ANYONE what they need given you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about firearm calibers.

what is a sniper rifle Glen?
 
jimbo said:
Your arguments get less valid the more you repeat them. It was you who misused the term assault rifle. FWIW, the AR 15 style comes in a wide variety of calibers.

Likewise your dislike for the sniper rifle. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded a home or held up a convenience store with a $5000, 50 pound, sniper rifle, especially from a half mile away. Banning them would result in zero reduction in crime.

You do seem to be hung up on need. But that is not a valid argument, either legally of from a pure enjoyment perspective. I have lots of things I don't need. And the 2nd makes no mention of need. I mentioned your cell phone, since you consider it a weapon. No one needs a cell phone. I have no desire to ban them based on need.
Click to expand...

what is hilarious is this claim he made yesterday when he now wants to ban all sorts of things

Glen Contrarian said:
Who said I oppose other citizens owning guns? I only oppose those having guns who shouldn't have them in the first place.
Click to expand...

and this


Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. Since I've stated time and time again that I have zero problem with law-abiding citizens being able to own guns, that's silly?
Click to expand...
 
jimbo said:
Your arguments get less valid the more you repeat them. It was you who misused the term assault rifle. FWIW, the AR 15 style comes in a wide variety of calibers.
Click to expand...

Does it fire the same round as an M-16?

Likewise your dislike for the sniper rifle. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded a home or held up a convenience store with a $5000, 50 pound, sniper rifle, especially from a half mile away. Banning them would result in zero reduction in crime.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they would be used for home invasion or robbery, did I? I referred to assassination, didn't I? Outside of war and sporting competitions, assassination is pretty much all they're good for. Focus, guy.

You do seem to be hung up on need. But that is not a valid argument, either legally of from a pure enjoyment perspective. I have lots of things I don't need. And the 2nd makes no mention of need. I mentioned your cell phone, since you consider it a weapon. No one needs a cell phone. I have no desire to ban them based on need.
Click to expand...

As you know very well, I never said the cell phone was a weapon - that's you twisting words (again). I said it was something necessary for home defense - and I said that because while a homes phone lines can be cut, that's not so easy for cell phones.

You say that no one needs a cell phone. Dude, the ability to communicate is crucial in any crisis situation, whether at home or in business or on the street or in war. The better one's ability to communicate, the better his or her odds is in a crisis situation. What part that you don't get, I really don't understand. Give me a choice between a gun and a working cell phone, I'll pick the cell phone any day - because I can easily block the perp trying to force his way into my room, and the police are only minutes away. On the other hand, if I have a gun and no working cell phone, it becomes a gunfight that I may win but that I also might lose...and I'd have no hope of backup, rescue, or EMS.

Tactically speaking, in the modern world the ability to effectively communicate trumps having a gun on hand any day of the week.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Does it fire the same round as an M-16?
Click to expand...

Many do, but I have one also that fires .22LR. They can be had in just about every rifle and many pistol calibers. Oh, and the last few real attempts to kill a sitting president were done with cheap junk ass guns. Hinkly and Oswald. I forgot what Squeeky Fromme used to try to shoot Ford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom