• 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
And having a gun does not automatically allow you to pass go and collect 200 dollars either.

The "what if" game does not point to the gun owner winning the contest 100% of the time.

Of course not. ANY person who thinks that the instant guns are *used* that they will escape unscathed is kidding themselves.

This is why education is so important. The tons of files on actual gunfights...the number of hits opponents take and keep on shooting (who cares if they die later...they keep shooting for a long time before that).....the reality is that NO ONE wants to be involved in a shooting. The toll will be high. Period. The odds are you WILL be hit and maybe die. Do anti-gun people actual think that people 'prepared to use guns' think that guns are magic shields? We KNOW they are not. That delusion may be their but it is not ours.

But why should it be one-sided? If you want to open yourself up to victimization, that's fine. I'd rather take the time (and enjoy) to train and be better prepared to defend myself than leave myself open to the whims of someone breaking into my home.
 
I would rather spend the time and money on making my house harder to break into. It almost seems like some of you on here would welcome a situation like this so you could put your arsenal to use.

Anyone with a brain knows that even if it's a legally legitimate shoot, the legal fees can be enough to lose you your house....even if found innocent.

There's no way in Hell I'd use my firearm unless it was absolutely in order to save my life. Which is sad because criminals have no such concerns and that consideration could actually cost me the time it takes to save myself.
 
keeping your family alive would be greatly increased by avoiding the gunfight.

You dont know that at all. What it means is that their lives are 100% in the hands of the attackers...and you are at their mercy...to die or not.
 
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.

O.M.G.

Have you attempted to 'throw your mattress up against the door?' As hard or easy as it is to do, same for the intruders. Not to mention that bullets go right thru doors and walls and mattresses.

Yeah, you better hope the cops are there in less than 5 minutes.

You are not prepared to defend your family. What if you had kids????
 
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.

Shotgun? Really? And if there are multiple (2-3) attackers coming after a woman? Yeah...you like to assume they'll be scared off by the sound...if they are armed and motivated...why would they be?

No woman should ever buy into what you are selling....
 
who has publicly claimed that FDR's "discovery" of this power was consistent with the founders intent?

What specific "Founders intent" are you referring to?
 
its dishonest and moronic to pretend that the founders-people who had just thrown off England's tyranny and who believed in Natural rights, would delegate all sorts of unwritten powers that have nothing to do with international issues to a national government

in other words, its unbelievable anyone can say -with a straight face-that retail firearms sales or how an individual citizen keeps and bears arms is something the founders thought was an area of federal concern or federal jurisdiction

The Founders wrote the document they wrote and it provides the powers it provides.

In my three years working in the Michigan legislature I worked on many bills. A good percentage of my time was going back to previously enacted legislation which was now on the books as law but had some unforeseen result or consequence that the writer or some backer had no foreseen. All legislatures have this problem and some jokingly call it an effort to clean up behind the elephant which has already walked through town. Why should the results of the Founders work be any different? They provided what they provided and if their powers to look into the future and predict with 100% accuracy the results of their work is not what they may have hoped it would be - then so be it as simply the nature of the game.

But I will not judge anyones so called intent when that record is not crystal clear and is not at all complete. Playing that game is a losing proposition for everyone as it yields no results which can be said to be 100% accurate and beyond any doubt. I simply accept the document as it is and what it says without trying to play the game of reading the minds of people who have been dead for nearly two centuries now and who live in a world which is no longer with us.
 
How pathetic. My bedroom is also a safe room. I have a plan and actual cover (not just concealment) in that room. If I had a wife to protect, I'd sure as HELL have at least some plan to protect her.

And btw, silencers also suppress some muzzle flash and are legal in alot of states....are they legal in TX? Do you know?

Silencers are not legal in Texas. And no, I didn't have to look that up.

This is an opinion site, so your's is welcome. However Missy, breaking into my house is much more dangerous than breaking into yours.
 
You dont know that at all. What it means is that their lives are 100% in the hands of the attackers...and you are at their mercy...to die or not.

No. Keeping your family out of a gunfight has much higher survival rates than knowingly putting them in the middle of a gunfight where you are out numbered.
 
What, you assume they'll let you live after they rape her?

Just as likely shoot you both and burn the house down.

Me, I'd rather fight for my life than sit and wait to 'see what they'll do to me.'

You, who lives "oustide" of the city are 10000 times more likely to get an intruder. I live on a cul-de-sac with two LEOs and a detective. If they are going to break into my house, they'd better do it quietly.
 
I think its funny that there are people that live in a neighborhood like this one below:

799px-Cul-de-Sac_cropped.jpg

That live in some mortal fear of some sort of home invasion and thus arm themselves to the teeth against it.... despite the odds of such a thing happening to them in that kind of a community being astronomically small. Yet they might smoke, eat poorly, or not exercise regularly, and thus practically insure they will not live as long as they otherwise would have. And or they allow their kids to eat poorly and become overweight or obese, and thus practically insure that their kids will not live as long as they otherwise would have.

I say this as a gun owner and I am pro-gun, but it has been my experience though that those that are armed to the teeth because of some irrational fear of being raped or murdered by armed gangs in their home are usually some of the worst judges of actual risk out there.
 
The Founders wrote the document they wrote and it provides the powers it provides.

In my three years working in the Michigan legislature I worked on many bills. A good percentage of my time was going back to previously enacted legislation which was now on the books as law but had some unforeseen result or consequence that the writer or some backer had no foreseen. All legislatures have this problem and some jokingly call it an effort to clean up behind the elephant which has already walked through town. Why should the results of the Founders work be any different? They provided what they provided and if their powers to look into the future and predict with 100% accuracy the results of their work is not what they may have hoped it would be - then so be it as simply the nature of the game.

But I will not judge anyones so called intent when that record is not crystal clear and is not at all complete. Playing that game is a losing proposition for everyone as it yields no results which can be said to be 100% accurate and beyond any doubt. I simply accept the document as it is and what it says without trying to play the game of reading the minds of people who have been dead for nearly two centuries now and who live in a world which is no longer with us.

lots of words-nothing relevant. the fact is my interpretation is far more sensible than pretending that the founders intended all sorts of powers for a federal government that are state issues like what sort of firearms private citizens could own.
 
Having a gun is like having insurance (home, health, whatever): it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. All of them give some measure of protection (financial or physical) in the circumstance of unlikely events. Guns have the added bonus of being fun, certainly much moreso than fiddling with insurance policies.

Oh, BTW, silencers are legal in Texas, but the feds require NFA application/tax stamp. Absolutely ridiculous, as any other device that both lessened the chance of ear damage AND lowered noise pollution would not only be legal but mandatory, but such is the result of the nanny-staters getting their way for over 80 years.
 
I just hope you can differentiate between people who want gun control and people who actually want guns banned from public use.
 
Of course I would want a gun. I wouldn't use it though, due to personal convictions. BTW, this only proves that this site is a conservative haven. I don't like the term "anti gun" though. Does anybody truly want to take away all guns?

Taking away all guns from all private citizens is the stated goal of several gun groups.
 
lots of words-nothing relevant. the fact is my interpretation is far more sensible than pretending that the founders intended all sorts of powers for a federal government that are state issues like what sort of firearms private citizens could own.

Believing that one knows what the 55 Founders had in mind in terms of intent is indeed PRETENDING. It is also an act of intellectual arrogance not to mention invoking a tactic reeking of intellectual dishonesty since one DOES NOT have to discuss what actually is but can then pretend to somehow magically "know" what was in the minds of 55 people who have been dead some two centuries now and who live in a world that has changed radically from the one they lived in.

People who write documents and laws are often surprised when their very words come back to bite them in the ass with unforeseen consequences. In my three years working in the Michigan legislature I worked on many bills. A good percentage of my time was going back to previously enacted legislation which was now on the books as law but had some unforeseen result or consequence that the writer or some backer had no foreseen. All legislatures have this problem and some jokingly call it an effort to clean up behind the elephant which has already walked through town. Why should the results of the Founders work be any different? They provided what they provided and if their powers to look into the future and predict with 100% accuracy the results of their work is not what they may have hoped it would be - then so be it as simply the nature of the game.
 
I just hope you can differentiate between people who want gun control and people who actually want guns banned from public use.

Good luck with that hope. You will soon discover that there is a type of person who willingly pretends that anyone who is not on the far right of the gun issue is to be lumped in with those who want to repeal the Second Amendment and ban guns. They refuse to deal with subtleties and gray areas or the middle ground since it is those people who are the real threat to their agenda. You see Robbie, the gun banners are also on the extreme margins and they have no chance of success either legislatively or politically. So they are no threat to the far right gun crowd. But the people who support gun ownership for things like self defense, home protection, hunting and sporting but who favor registration and background checks or limits on magazine size are the ones who get demonized since they have a chance at success and they are ones who then get the worst vitriol and hatred of the gun righties. So it is necessary for them to ignore the subtleties.... to pretend that the differences do not exist .... and to outright demonize those who do not support the gun lobby agenda.
 
uh that the CC was not supposed to be intrusive into intrastate issues

They wrote the Constitution giving power to Congress over interstate commerce among other things. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3. They gave Congress power over the militia in the same article and section paragraph 16. So you are incorrect in your assumptions about their intent.
 
No. Keeping your family out of a gunfight has much higher survival rates than knowingly putting them in the middle of a gunfight where you are out numbered.

Not if who you should be fighting are going to victimize them later.
 
I think its funny that there are people that live in a neighborhood like this one below:

View attachment 67166544

That live in some mortal fear of some sort of home invasion and thus arm themselves to the teeth against it.... despite the odds of such a thing happening to them in that kind of a community being astronomically small. Yet they might smoke, eat poorly, or not exercise regularly, and thus practically insure they will not live as long as they otherwise would have. And or they allow their kids to eat poorly and become overweight or obese, and thus practically insure that their kids will not live as long as they otherwise would have.

I say this as a gun owner and I am pro-gun, but it has been my experience though that those that are armed to the teeth because of some irrational fear of being raped or murdered by armed gangs in their home are usually some of the worst judges of actual risk out there.

Every time you interview people, the first words are "I never thought something like that would happen here". Your assumptions are off base.
 
O.M.G.

Have you attempted to 'throw your mattress up against the door?' As hard or easy as it is to do, same for the intruders. Not to mention that bullets go right thru doors and walls and mattresses.

Yeah, you better hope the cops are there in less than 5 minutes.

You are not prepared to defend your family. What if you had kids????

And you are not aware of the setup of my bedroom. You can shoot all the bullets through those mattresses you want, but if you can't open the door even when you're throwing your body against it, you can't get into the bedroom.

I'm not stupid, guy. Do you really think I didn't take all that into account?
 
Shotgun? Really? And if there are multiple (2-3) attackers coming after a woman? Yeah...you like to assume they'll be scared off by the sound...if they are armed and motivated...why would they be?

No woman should ever buy into what you are selling....

Ah. I'm surprised you didn't understand that most people out there can't shoot straight when the crap hits the fan...which is why a shotgun is a much better weapon - even someone with very little training can hit a target when it's within 15 feet - they don't have to take nearly so much time to aim. And before that, you have to remember that nobody - including those 2-3 attackers - wants to die...and that's what they'll be thinking about when they hear that unmistakable sound of the shotgun's action.
 
No. Keeping your family out of a gunfight has much higher survival rates than knowingly putting them in the middle of a gunfight where you are out numbered.

If you and your family have a plan....they wont be 'in the middle' of it.They will be in safe places, behind locked doors, with some type of actual cover. Perhaps they are the ones calling 911.

Often, the wife...armed or unarmed....goes immediately to the children and is prepared to defend them in place.

Nothing is foolproof but the fool is the one that does not think ahead and plan and at least try.
 
You, who lives "oustide" of the city are 10000 times more likely to get an intruder. I live on a cul-de-sac with two LEOs and a detective. If they are going to break into my house, they'd better do it quietly.

I dont know where you got that number but how about some sources.

And it's obvious you have done what you need to sleep at nite. I hope you never find out.

I hope I never find out.
 
Back
Top Bottom