• 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
Im pro gun, but in this scenario I think a flamethrower would be much better.

w88V2HD.jpg
Only if your home was condemned as a health hazard and you had to show cause to the Court why you are not in contempt for razing it
 
Care to explain why? I find it is often the refuge of those presented with a good argument to lash out into ad hominem attacks.

I would love to.

1) A gun owner is most likely going to keep a pistol near his bed. Worst case scenario, it'll be in his room closeby. He will get to his gun before the burglar gets to him.

2) When confronted in an invasion not involving premeditated assault/murder, chances are great that, when confronted, a thief will leave. He won't stay and fight, especially not when a gun can enter the picture.

3) No gun owner is going to "dive" into some cabinet - doubly so when a burglar is between them. Logic dictates that the homeowner runs away or says to take his stuff and not hurt him.

4) In a situation he cannot control, a burglar only needs to run and get out of the house before an owner goes and track down his gun and pursues, should he be dumb enough to do so. Once he's out of the place, he's safe. You can only shoot to kill when there is reasonable expectation of your life being in danger. A man shot in the back outside of the home is murdered, not a victim of self- defense.

You're British. As much as property crime is rampant in the UK, you should be a touch more educated about this. No such luck, huh?
 
You had to go back 50 years?

Pick someone known from more recent times. I doubt many younger folks here know who you are talking about.

There is always Wikipedia.
 
I would love to.

1) A gun owner is most likely going to keep a pistol near his bed. Worst case scenario, it'll be in his room closeby. He will get to his gun before the burglar gets to him.

2) When confronted in an invasion not involving premeditated assault/murder, chances are great that, when confronted, a thief will leave. He won't stay and fight, especially not when a gun can enter the picture.

3) No gun owner is going to "dive" into some cabinet - doubly so when a burglar is between them. Logic dictates that the homeowner runs away or says to take his stuff and not hurt him.

4) In a situation he cannot control, a burglar only needs to run and get out of the house before an owner goes and track down his gun and pursues, should he be dumb enough to do so. Once he's out of the place, he's safe. You can only shoot to kill when there is reasonable expectation of your life being in danger. A man shot in the back outside of the home is murdered, not a victim of self- defense.

You're British. As much as property crime is rampant in the UK, you should be a touch more educated about this. No such luck, huh?

There is something prosecutors and cops assume

1) if you are there to burgle a house and you are seeking to avoid confrontation you break and enter during the day

2) if you break and enter at night-you are intending to confront the homeowners

if you intentionally invade an occupied home or a one that you should assume is occupied, the LE establishment assumes you were there to threaten-or worse-the residents

what does that mean? if someone breaking into your home during the day chances are he is just there to steal
if he comes at night-assume he is there to hurt you and act accordingly
 
The scenario is completely arbitrary, so sniping individual details is insignificant. What if it were one armed man? One unarmed man? Is there any scenario at all where you would abandon your anti-gun beliefs and wish you had a gun?



Every once in a while somebody says something so horrifically atrocious that it needs to be pointed out.

But you pointed out that I am a coward because I actually have a plan. I've run through it in my mind. The only outcome must be that my spouse and I will be alive when it's over.

There is nothing cowardly about not being a gun blazing idiot, as you and your wife would be dead.

Dig? Idiot!
 
Last edited:
The page "Famous people shot dead in their homes" does not exist.

Probably not. But the Sharon Tate page does. ;)

Was she shot, by the way?
 
I would love to.

1) A gun owner is most likely going to keep a pistol near his bed. Worst case scenario, it'll be in his room closeby. He will get to his gun before the burglar gets to him.

2) When confronted in an invasion not involving premeditated assault/murder, chances are great that, when confronted, a thief will leave. He won't stay and fight, especially not when a gun can enter the picture.

3) No gun owner is going to "dive" into some cabinet - doubly so when a burglar is between them. Logic dictates that the homeowner runs away or says to take his stuff and not hurt him.

4) In a situation he cannot control, a burglar only needs to run and get out of the house before an owner goes and track down his gun and pursues, should he be dumb enough to do so. Once he's out of the place, he's safe. You can only shoot to kill when there is reasonable expectation of your life being in danger. A man shot in the back outside of the home is murdered, not a victim of self- defense.

You're British. As much as property crime is rampant in the UK, you should be a touch more educated about this. No such luck, huh?

Property crime rampant? Yeah, just like we're all murdering each-other with machetes over here, because, in your worldview, it is people who are fundamentally the problem, and no amount of good education and restriction from dangerous weapons will reduce murder.

Except, none of that's true. Property crime is lower here than in the US, just like murder is, as well as violent death.

Introducing guns to the equation only ever results in more death. I fail to see how anyone can argue against this.
 
I don't know what level of training people have....but mine included defensive use of the weapon. Basically it is very simple:

1) Do not head to danger, wait for it to come to you and put something solid between you and it.
2) Create a safe zone with a firing window.
3) Do not aim for a lethal shot to the head.
4) Shoot at the largest target area on the exposed body.
5) Be prepared to fire multiple shots in needed.

Above all, do not have a gun you will not fire.

Somewhere in there, call 911.
 
The scenario is completely arbitrary, so sniping individual details is insignificant. What if it were one armed man? One unarmed man? Is there any scenario at all where you would abandon your anti-gun beliefs and wish you had a gun?



Every once in a while somebody says something so horrifically atrocious that it needs to be pointed out.

Well no the scenario is not completely arbitrary since the title of this thread is "would you want a gun in THIS situation". But you have moved the goal posts which is fine I will play along, I feel like its much more effective to take measures to prevent people getting into your house. I have double glazed security windows, top of the line doors and a great security system. If someone gets into my house I will know about it as will all my street and the Police.
If by some miracle they did get in my house the idea of potentially getting into a gun battle in my home makes me feel very uneasy. It's my house so I know all the dark cornors, im very quiet and I own a very nice cricket bat.
 
Probably not. But the Sharon Tate page does. ;)

Was she shot, by the way?

I'm pretty sure that she and Labianca were stabbed and cut up.
 
Somewhere in there, call 911.

This is generally an afterthought, and not included in the training as it is not considered protective.

A 5 minute wait for help may very well kill you.
 
I would like a ZF-1, please.


 
Somewhere in there, call 911.

I hope, if you're choking on your food in a restaurant, someone says "call 911" instead of "does anyone know the Heimlich?". If you make it long enough to come back to DP, tell us all about your experience. I know I would love to hear it.
 
If armed men break in to my house i'm already outnumbered and they are unlikely to back down because I own a gun, a fire fight will ensue and my family will be caught in the cross fire.

Really? I thought you were like this guy:

JohnMcClane.jpg

or at the very least, this guy:

homealone2.jpg
 
I do not live in fear of unlikely events happening.

I don't live in fear of unlikely events happening, but I still have weapons available, and I still fasten my seat belt.

There is no point in not being prepared to minimize the effects of unlikely events.
 
I don't live in fear of unlikely events happening, but I still have weapons available, and I still fasten my seat belt.

There is no point in not being prepared to minimize the effects of unlikely events.

the gun tremblers think that there is a major downside to actually preparing for a home invasion. In reality, the downside comes from NOT preparing for such an incident and then having to deal with one.
 
This is generally an afterthought, and not included in the training as it is not considered protective.

A 5 minute wait for help may very well kill you.

Call 911 it is a multitasking kinda thing. If you have a phone handy, dial it, they can find where you are. If you are able to talk to them, all the better. It is not "call 911 and stay put"
 
Property crime rampant? Yeah, just like we're all murdering each-other with machetes over here, because, in your worldview, it is people who are fundamentally the problem, and no amount of good education and restriction from dangerous weapons will reduce murder.

Except, none of that's true. Property crime is lower here than in the US, just like murder is, as well as violent death.

Introducing guns to the equation only ever results in more death. I fail to see how anyone can argue against this.

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.
 
You have demonstrated a contemptous view most anti gun rights advocates have of gun owners, and while you probably can find such an inept gun owner among the 55 million who own guns MOST are no where near this inept. I find it curious the anti gun advocates here can't answer the question but merely change the question or refuse to answer with "its not going to happen" or some other blind exuberance.

To answer the question, I am a gun owner, I am one who trains others to use guns, and in this situation provided my wife and I would insure those who entered our home to cause us great harm were repelled.

Two can play this game.

What say you to this similarly unlikely and absurd situation:

Thieves break in to steal your TV, and you go downstairs to check it out. As is almost always the case, the thieves only want your stuff and to leave. They threaten you to go away, and they start to make good their escape.

Suddenly you dive for your gun cabinet near your TV, throw it open, and one of the thieves, upon realising his life is in mortal danger because some moron intends to shoot him, hits you over the head with his crowbar.

At what point do you wish you had not had any guns in the house?
 
If I considered that scenario possible I'd definitely have a gun handy. In fact, if I lived in almost any American city I'd have a gun with me always. As it is, I just can't justify the trouble and expense. If you gave me one I'd say thanks, but it's probably about number 73 on my to-do list.
 
Call 911 it is a multitasking kinda thing. If you have a phone handy, dial it, they can find where you are. If you are able to talk to them, all the better. It is not "call 911 and stay put"

Actually, yes it would be. Though you would "Stay Put" while armed and ready:

 
Back
Top Bottom