• 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
I'm not the one that needs a clue bro.

I'm not a bro.
Calm down bro. I clearly meant firearm usage by the public as opposed to banning it and only allowing the government to use firearms.
 
You mean like the plan where you start a gunfight first?

if that is the strategically best choice. I train for that sort of thing constantly.
 
You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.

you have no idea about the situation. so you can be right, you can be wrong. and btw-those who resist a violent attack with an armed response are less likely to be killed or injured then those who submit

I am fairly confident I know what is hard cover better than a home invader. I also am fairly confident I know what will stop the rounds out of my weapon and what won't and that the scumbag intruders don't. And while I am also certain that anyone who breaks into my home is going to be faster and stronger than a 55 year old guy with lots of sports injuries, I doubt there are many mopes who are as fast and accurate with a pistol or a rifle or shotgun then a former world class shooter I once was (and am still close to being in several disciplines)
 
You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.
The best thing to do is what you think is best. Nobody's opinion of what you should do is better than your own. You couldn't do correctly what I would do. And vice verse. If I wake to find armed men in my home I already consider myself dead unless I do something fast. I'll be damned if I will be forced to watch and hear my wife being raped.
I am in now way trying to change your mind. You should do what is best for you.
 
You start shooting at armed men you are likely to get yourself and your children killed. But don't let that stop you from being reckless.




Because relying on the empathy and mercy of people who are likely unfamiliar with these virtues is so much wiser... :roll:
 
No, when you adopt that is a requirement of the home study. Moreover, the odds of a grease fire in your kitchen, while not high, are far greater than the odds of ever being the victim of a violent home invasion. I also keep a shotgun in the back of our bedroom closet with shells next to it. The rest of my hunting guns I keep down at my dad's in rural Arkansas because chances are if we ever were robbed, it would almost certainly be when no one was home, and all that having a bunch of guns in my house would accomplish is getting a bunch of guns stolen.

My point was the scenario described in the opening post was a silly one because its so extremely rare for such a thing to happen in the vast majority of neighborhoods. Of course, if a violent home invasion were to occur at my house I would want to be armed. Who wouldn't want to be. Similarly, if God exists and decided to punish the world with another great flood, I would be glad we have a canoe. The latter scenario only slightly less likely than the former. ;)

buying a safe is a good idea for those hunting guns
 
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?

Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.

It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.
 
you are home asleep in bed, armed men are in your home. that pretty much defines "confronted" to me.

If they are inside, they are legally live targets.
 
Calm down bro. I clearly meant firearm usage by the public as opposed to banning it and only allowing the government to use firearms.

I'm calm. I'm also a female.

Please dont expect me to try and carry on a rational conversation with someone who willfully or ignorantly cant figure the simplest of things out.
 
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.

It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.

And? So we should disarm everyone to make sure no one commits suicide? Of course some people will, and that's their perrogative. I'd rather have them take themselves out that way than to endanger anyone else jumping off a building or doing something in a car.

The question in the OP was if you would want a gun or not, and you stated you did, so what else is there?
 
Last edited:
No, when you adopt that is a requirement of the home study. Moreover, the odds of a grease fire in your kitchen, while not high, are far greater than the odds of ever being the victim of a violent home invasion. I also keep a shotgun in the back of our bedroom closet with shells next to it. The rest of my hunting guns I keep down at my dad's in rural Arkansas because chances are if we ever were robbed, it would almost certainly be when no one was home, and all that having a bunch of guns in my house would accomplish is getting a bunch of guns stolen.

My point was the scenario described in the opening post was a silly one because its so extremely rare for such a thing to happen in the vast majority of neighborhoods. Of course, if a violent home invasion were to occur at my house I would want to be armed. Who wouldn't want to be. Similarly, if God exists and decided to punish the world with another great flood, I would be glad we have a canoe. The latter scenario only slightly less likely than the former. ;)
Any one coming to your home, in groups or alone may very well require an armed response. If you are not prepared for that, then what.
 
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.

It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.

wrong=there are many many more defensive gun uses than suicides. And there is no evidence that people deprived of guns have lower suicide rates. Just check out Japan
 
wrong=there are many many more defensive gun uses than suicides. And there is no evidence that people deprived of guns have lower suicide rates. Just check out Japan

I suspect you are right on the defensive use of guns compared to suicide but lets all admit that the statistics are hardly hard and fast and the exact numbers are up for debate.

How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

As far as Japan goes, using their suicide numbers (which you did not provide or refer to) are very very misleading since the cultural view of suicide is radically different than the same practice in the USA and guns play little role in the situation either way. The last time I checked, Japan was barely in the top ten of suicide rates - which is still high just the same. But the existence or non existence of guns in their culture plays no role in that either way.
 
I'm calm. I'm also a female.

Please dont expect me to try and carry on a rational conversation with someone who willfully or ignorantly cant figure the simplest of things out.
I use bro as a gender neutral term. I recognize that you identify yourself as a female.
 
A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.
If every weak minded loser would do just that, imagine how much better our nation would be.
 
I suspect you are right on the defensive use of guns compared to suicide but lets all admit that the statistics are hardly hard and fast and the exact numbers are up for debate.

How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek

As far as Japan goes, using their suicide numbers (which you did not provide or refer to) are very very misleading since the cultural view of suicide is radically different than the same practice in the USA and guns play little role in the situation either way. The last time I checked, Japan was barely in the top ten of suicide rates - which is still high just the same. But the existence or non existence of guns in their culture plays no role in that either way.

I prefer people kill themselves with a gun rather than say jump out of buildings, or worse yet-drive the wrong way on highways: such an attempt was unsuccessful in one case I know of but it orphaned two girls I grew up with since their parents' porsche was no match for the large station wagon some guy trying to kill himself was driving.

Furthermore, I am fundamentally opposed to limiting the rights of one person because another person cannot properly exercise such rights.
 
Suicide by firearm is more likely than the scenario that you describe. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle you could be writing a suicide note to your family. Some people don't need that kind of temptation.

A bad day at work could start with a bottle of liquor, end with a bullet to the brain and in the middle your spouse could be cussing you out for leaving your socks in the floor. Your spouse doesn't need that kind of temptation.

It's better not to have a gun in your home. The scenario that you are describing is very rare. The scenario of suicide and spousal homicide is very common.

sounds like you should be advocating banning Liquor.

Oh wait, remind me how that worked the last time we tried that
 
And? So we should disarm everyone to make sure no one commits suicide? Of course some people will, and that's their perrogative. I'd rather have them take themselves out that way than to endanger anyone else jumping off a building or doing something in a car.

The question in the OP was if you would want a gun or not, and you stated you did, so what else is there?

In that situation I would want a gun. I don't a gun laying around my house all of the time. I would want a gun in that one in a 552,386 possibility that you described.
 
sounds like you should be advocating banning Liquor.

Oh wait, remind me how that worked the last time we tried that

For the record. I don't advocate banning weapons. I just don't want one in my house.
 
For the record. I don't advocate banning weapons. I just don't want one in my house.

I believe in free choice. so I support your right to be disarmed
 
I prefer people kill themselves with a gun rather than say jump out of buildings, or worse yet-drive the wrong way on highways: such an attempt was unsuccessful in one case I know of but it orphaned two girls I grew up with since their parents' porsche was no match for the large station wagon some guy trying to kill himself was driving.

Furthermore, I am fundamentally opposed to limiting the rights of one person because another person cannot properly exercise such rights.

I certainly join you in agreeing that whatever the method , they not create other victims they take with them. But having said that, I cannot imagine what it is like to come home and find a family member who has killed themselves via firearm and find their brains and blood splattered about and have to clean that up. While that family member or loved one is not a dead victim - they certainly are some sort of harmed person just the same.
 
I certainly join you in agreeing that whatever the method , they not create other victims they take with them. But having said that, I cannot imagine what it is like to come home and find a family member who has killed themselves via firearm and find their brains and blood splattered about and have to clean that up. While that family member or loved one is not a dead victim - they certainly are some sort of harmed person just the same.

well that is a good point. and I can relate to it. My Godfather-who had already lost one son to a drunk driver and then a grandson to a drowning went to pick up his youngest son for a job interview (a boy who had never been the same ever since his older brother was killed and it only got worse when this boy's son-the product of a marriage that turned into a bitter divorce-drowned when his coked out mother allowed the 2 year old to wander into a neighbors yard and fall into a pool) only to find his son dead from "eating a shotgun". But I don't know if that was any worse than a co-worker-the #2 in our office-found his middle son (who had drug problems) hanging in the family home.

I really didn't see much difference in the way both these men carried on through life after those tragedies.
 
Half our problems are from whiney little pukes that should off themselves the moment the urge strikes them. Harsh? Yes. Real? Yes.

What is the solution to this major problem? Mandatory firearm ownership?

Remember. It isn't a problem unless you have a solution.
 
Back
Top Bottom