• 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
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not either or.That is a good way to die in such situations.

The first thing they teach you in CPR class (and have for decades) is as soon as a second responder comes by "I know CPR, call 911".

What a silly way to think. Either help or call for help. Hope if you are in trouble nobody thinks this narrowly.

Unless you are under the illusion that all occluded airways clear and the projectile goes across the room just like on TV every time.

Occluded airway means no oxygen. No oxygen means brain injury.
 
tecoyah said:
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.
Click to expand...

So true. The only time I was personally involved in a life threatening situation was a vicious dog attack on a 12 year old kid in front of my home. Someone called 911. I went outside armed. 5 minutes later EMS and police showed up. By that time one of the two dogs was no longer a threat, and the other had run off.

Still, the kid spent two days in the hospital. I would guess the damage would have been much worse if I had waited for LEO to show up.
 
PoS said:
Im pro gun, but in this scenario I think a flamethrower would be much better.

w88V2HD.jpg
Click to expand...

Time for the burglars to get a touchup, juuuust a little touchup. :flame:
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Why would you be in contempt of court to lighting up a couple of moppets in your own home. Isn't that what the fire department and fire sprinklers are for anyhow?
 
Higgins86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So because someone "might" get caught, you would let them for sure become a victim.
 
Redress said:
I am not answering it in the way you want.
Click to expand...

Dancing around a question is not answering a question.

You asked a stupid question.
Click to expand...

It is a question related to an everyday scenario. I don't think that is stupid at all.
 
jimbo said:
So true. The only time I was personally involved in a life threatening situation was a vicious dog attack on a 12 year old kid in front of my home. Someone called 911. I went outside armed. 5 minutes later EMS and police showed up. By that time one of the two dogs was no longer a threat, and the other had run off.

Still, the kid spent two days in the hospital. I would guess the damage would have been much worse if I had waited for LEO to show up.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not either or.

You can have someone call, while you use your best judgment to handle the problem. That way, if things go sideways....you have 911 on the way.

Not either or. It rarely is.
 
Redress said:
To reduce the chance of burglary, there are a number of things you can do.
Click to expand...

Of course there are. But if one person prefers a different method of prevention to another you should not be able to deny that right.
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
Again, it is not either or.

You can have someone call, while you use your best judgment to handle the problem. That way, if things go sideways....you have 911 on the way.

Not either or. It rarely is.
Click to expand...

No reasonable person would argue it is either/or. In your Heimlich post, and in my situation, the first problem is immediate. After the immediate threat is removed, in most cases it's time to let the professionals take over. In most cases the first responder has neither the knowledge or equipment to proceed.
 
Higgins86 said:
Sorry? Can't quite make that post out old chap.
Click to expand...

You said you would worry about family getting caught in the cross fire, so you would would not want to be armed. So rather than get caught in the cross fire, maybe, you would let them be a victim absolutely.
 
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...

So you don't have insurance?
 
jimbo said:
No reasonable person would argue it is either/or. In your Heimlich post, and in my situation, the first problem is immediate. After the immediate threat is removed, in most cases it's time to let the professionals take over. In most cases the first responder has neither the knowledge or equipment to proceed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Well since the entire point of the post seems to simply attempt to call “anti-gunners” hypocrites, I’ll deal with the actual meat of it.Your premise is flawed. Wanting something, and feeling like you should legally be able to do it, are two different things.If I had a daughter rand someone raped her, I would want to punch that person repeatedly until their face resembled ground beef. Simply wanting to do that do doesn’t mean I think I should be legally allowed to be. Wanting to do that doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite for being in favor of laws against battery.Not to mention the argument is equally flawed because one can be a “anti-gun” (based on how many use it) and still be perfectly fine with firearm ownership. Unless you’re qualifying “anti-gunners” SINGULARLY as people who want to ban ALL guns. Someone who wants a lot of regulation, background checks, ammo limitations, etc. could ABSOLUTELY still have a gun in their house in the situation you explained. You didn’t say “At that point would you wish you had an unregistered gun that isn’t locked in any way and that was purchased without a waiting period of a background check”.All those things I just said are stuff that people point to as a means of declaring someone as “anti-gun”, and yet none of those things I listed would have automatically prevented that person from potentially having a gun in the scenario you concocted. Your entire hypothetical is ridiculous given the actual intention behind it, as it in no way actually indicates what you’re trying to suggest it does.
 
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...

I get your point, and I agree with you.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well since the entire point of the post seems to simply attempt to call “anti-gunners” hypocrites, I’ll deal with the actual meat of it.Your premise is flawed. Wanting something, and feeling like you should legally be able to do it, are two different things.If I had a daughter rand someone raped her, I would want to punch that person repeatedly until their face resembled ground beef. Simply wanting to do that do doesn’t mean I think I should be legally allowed to be. Wanting to do that doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite for being in favor of laws against battery.Not to mention the argument is equally flawed because one can be a “anti-gun” (based on how many use it) and still be perfectly fine with firearm ownership. Unless you’re qualifying “anti-gunners” SINGULARLY as people who want to ban ALL guns. Someone who wants a lot of regulation, background checks, ammo limitations, etc. could ABSOLUTELY still have a gun in their house in the situation you explained. You didn’t say “At that point would you wish you had an unregistered gun that isn’t locked in any way and that was purchased without a waiting period of a background check”.All those things I just said are stuff that people point to as a means of declaring someone as “anti-gun”, and yet none of those things I listed would have automatically prevented that person from potentially having a gun in the scenario you concocted. Your entire hypothetical is ridiculous given the actual intention behind it, as it in no way actually indicates what you’re trying to suggest it does.
Click to expand...

I guess the real hypocrisy comes from assholes in office who have taxpayer armed guards who push laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for poor people to have firearms to defend themselves or assholes like Cuomo who try to limit other citizens to 7 rounds in a weapon when we know damn well his guards are carrying 17 shot Glocks.

other hypocrites are those who push for all sorts of red tape for people to buy a gun who are against voters having to show an ID as well.
 
CRUE CAB said:
You said you would worry about family getting caught in the cross fire, so you would would not want to be armed. So rather than get caught in the cross fire, maybe, you would let them be a victim absolutely.
Click to expand...

No I would take other measures to ensure their safety like I have right now on my home. End of the day if a group of armed men enter your home your in trouble regardless of whether you are armed or not. Your already outnumbered, outgunned and you have to worry about your familys safety as well as your own. A gun will only take you so far as countless soldiers have learned over the years.
 
Higgins86 said:
No I would take other measures to ensure their safety like I have right now on my home. End of the day if a group of armed men enter your home your in trouble regardless of whether you are armed or not. Your already outnumbered, outgunned and you have to worry about your familys safety as well as your own. A gun will only take you so far as countless soldiers have learned over the years.
Click to expand...

having one is sure a better scenario then not unless your home is such that you can barricade everyone into an impregnable safe room and wait for the cops or you can control an access point with a sword and hack to death anyone who tries to breach it
 
Higgins86 said:
No I would take other measures to ensure their safety like I have right now on my home. End of the day if a group of armed men enter your home your in trouble regardless of whether you are armed or not. Your already outnumbered, outgunned and you have to worry about your familys safety as well as your own. A gun will only take you so far as countless soldiers have learned over the years.
Click to expand...
Don't assume our ability to fight back is any less than what is being brought to us. Force can and will be met with force. Well practiced and trained force.
But you keep thinking everyone is a defenseless lamb.
 
TurtleDude said:
having one is sure a better scenario then not unless your home is such that you can barricade everyone into an impregnable safe room and wait for the cops or you can control an access point with a sword and hack to death anyone who tries to breach it
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I'm sure there are plenty of situations where a armed homeowner has made a situation worse.

Again its pretty extreme example.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Don't assume our ability to fight back is any less than what is being brought to us. Force can and will be met with force. Well practiced and trained force.
But you keep thinking everyone is a defenseless lamb.
Click to expand...

Don't assume that the armed group are not also well trained professionals? Works both ways.
 
Higgins86 said:
Yes and no, I'm sure there are plenty of situations where a armed homeowner has made a situation worse.

Again its pretty extreme example.
Click to expand...

mainly from the invaders' perspective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom