• 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?


  • Total voters
    59
only you would think james madsion is irrleavent, when it comes to the constutution.

Next to the document itself, any individuals opinion is irrelevant.

You continue to make the same fatal flaw over and over and over and over in thread after thread after thread after thread. You want to pretend that the opinion of Madison should be the defining decider in any question about what the Constitution means. Sorry - it does not work that way since his opinion has no force of law.
 
Next to the document itself, any individuals opinion is irrelevant.

You continue to make the same fatal flaw over and over and over and over in thread after thread after thread after thread. You want to pretend that the opinion of Madison should be the defining decider in any question about what the Constitution means. Sorry - it does not work that way since his opinion has no force of law.

oh I see, this is your statement, you have been so wrong about the constitution every time to talk about it, and please, just please tell me how correct you are about so I can post some of your famous points about....i saved them for you.
 
oh I see, this is your statement, you have been so wrong about the constitution every time to talk about it, and please, just please tell me how correct you are about so I can post some of your famous points about....i saved them for you.

I have no idea what you are talking about an apparently neither do you as your personal attack was totally devoid of any specific substance.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about an apparently neither do you as your personal attack was totally devoid of any specific substance.

well I see we are back to your usual..."I don't know what your talking about"

so its a personal attack??????, to state you are wrong about the constitution...and to provide statements from you showing you to be incorrect when you made them?

stop acting as though you got an apple with a worn in it from a student.
 
well I see we are back to your usual..."I don't know what your talking about"

so its a personal attack??????, to state you are wrong about the constitution...and to provide statements from you showing you to be incorrect when you made them?

stop acting as though you got an apple with a worn in it from a student.

You DID NOT state anything where I was wrong about the Constitution. Your post was completely absent of any such documentation.
 
You DID NOT state anything where I was wrong about the Constitution. Your post was completely absent of any such documentation.

I referred to and said I CAN....."would you like for me to post your incorrect statements on the constitution?
 
and you have failed to do so

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


Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post


STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW!

How long will you continue to hijack the Constitution and the Founders who wrote it?

How long will you be blind to what is actually in it and not the nightmare fantasy that you want it to be?

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.

You have really stepped into it this time



Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post


You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Your own twisted perversion of the Constitution is bad enough but when you have to resort to outright lying - that is way way way over the bounds of decency.

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
 
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

Balderdash. There is absolutley not one precendent in American jurisprudence to agree with your radical interpretation. If so, please present it.

And get a clue Barkmann - your post is not claiming that I am making an error regarding the Constitution but every Congress and ever President and ever Supreme Court has made the error and I simply am telling you what the law is.

And that reality in and all by itself tells everyone just what kind of belief system you really have going there.
 
Balderdash. There is absolutley not one precendent in American jurisprudence to agree with your radical interpretation. If so, please present it.

And get a clue Barkmann - your post is not claiming that I am making an error regarding the Constitution but every Congress and ever President and ever Supreme Court has made the error and I simply am telling you what the law is.

And that reality in and all by itself tells everyone just what kind of belief system you really have going there.

i have posted your failings on the constitution enough i could create a small book on them...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Give me a scenario where you are using preparation and tactics without firing?

How about the original OP where a group of armed men are in your house. Tell me how this scenario plays out in your mind.

Please be detailed. I can't wait.
 
Give me a scenario where you are using preparation and tactics without firing?

How about the original OP where a group of armed men are in your house. Tell me how this scenario plays out in your mind.

Please be detailed. I can't wait.

It depends a great deal on the layout of your house, how many people are in it, and your hardening of that home. Do you have a single staircase up to the 2nd floor? Do you have a means to block that? Do you have a plan for your wife to take all kids into a saferoom? How is that room set up? Can they lock themselves in, is there an actual place of cover (bullet resistant) for them?

What are you communicating to the armed men? That you are armed? (even if not?) That you have called 911? Can you join the family in the safe room? Do you have any diversions?

This is just off the top of my head. It's just me at my house, in a saferoom/bedroom with gun safe, ammo, gun sitting out on night stand shelf, land line, cell phone, high intensity flashlight, and actual cover plus an odd floorplan. I can get to that room before anyone can cut me off from almost anywhere in my house (Maybe not if I'm in a back spare bedroom, which is unusual). I hopefully never have to fire a shot after declaring my intentions and calling 911....but if I do, I'm prepared.
 
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?


I dont understand why you jump strait to the conclusion that someone who does not think a gun would help in this situation is a hypocrite. Let me give you a few reasons why I don't think owning a gun in this situation necissarily protects you.

Lets say the individual breaks into the home while your family is asleep. They have the upper hand already. If I had a firearm in the house it would be locked up and unloaded. Especially if I have children, because that is how many of these children who get ahold of weapons shoot themselves. Their parents don't secure their weapons. So I would have to unsecure it and load it in the dark while this individual is in my house. If they have not already barged into a bedroom where I am or where any of my family is sleeping, I am already to late if they have ill intentions. Not only that, if they do have ill intentions other then simply robbing me, if they see that I have a firearm it will escalate the situation further. This escalation could get more people killed.

The reality is, that most of the time when someone breaks into the house they are not interested in killing anyone. They have weapons to defend themselves in case you confront them. If you pull a weapon on them the will use their weapon as well. Which could get you or someone in your family killed. Where as if you had dealt with the situation without a firearm no one would be harmed. The problem I see with many who own firearms is they are all caught up in their own pride. "No one is going to steal my stuff" people say. As if the things they bought at a store are worth getting people killed over.

If you want to catch these people, put up a security system in your home that will prevent them from entering. Or if they do happen to enter your home, they will not get away.
 
I dont understand why you jump strait to the conclusion that someone who does not think a gun would help in this situation is a hypocrite. Let me give you a few reasons why I don't think owning a gun in this situation necissarily protects you.

Lets say the individual breaks into the home while your family is asleep. They have the upper hand already. If I had a firearm in the house it would be locked up and unloaded. Especially if I have children, because that is how many of these children who get ahold of weapons shoot themselves. Their parents don't secure their weapons. So I would have to unsecure it and load it in the dark while this individual is in my house. If they have not already barged into a bedroom where I am or where any of my family is sleeping, I am already to late if they have ill intentions. Not only that, if they do have ill intentions other then simply robbing me, if they see that I have a firearm it will escalate the situation further. This escalation could get more people killed.

The reality is, that most of the time when someone breaks into the house they are not interested in killing anyone. They have weapons to defend themselves in case you confront them. If you pull a weapon on them the will use their weapon as well. Which could get you or someone in your family killed. Where as if you had dealt with the situation without a firearm no one would be harmed. The problem I see with many who own firearms is they are all caught up in their own pride. "No one is going to steal my stuff" people say. As if the things they bought at a store are worth getting people killed over.

If you want to catch these people, put up a security system in your home that will prevent them from entering. Or if they do happen to enter your home, they will not get away.

1) if your gun is locked and unloaded that is like saying you used your seat belt in your car when you sat on it. you have no gun

2) ask any cop, former LEO (me) or judge. If someone breaks into a home at night it is PRESUMED they are there to confront the occupants. THOSE WHO HAVE NO INTEREST in confrontation break in during the day or after casing the home to make sure it is empty.

security systems generally don't prevent people from entering it alerts the cops when you aren't home or alerts you so you can call the cops (or in our case) ready a most suitable welcome for the intruders
 
I do not live in fear of unlikely events happening.
A very ignorant statement, to say the least. There's difference in living in fear and being prepared for the worst case scenario. I don't lay in my bed all night waiting on armed men to break in. However, I also know exactly what I would do if they did. That's just the right the thing to. Especially if you have a family.
 
Back
Top Bottom