• 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!

Does owning a hand gun for protection make you more safe or less safe?

Does owning a hand gun for protection make you more safe or less safe?


  • Total voters
    81
I'm on my phone so I couldn't vote but if I could I would vote other. I think individuals who are properly trained with firearms are more safe but individuals who aren't properly trained are less safe. The reason I voted other is because I think for the untrained people it is much wiser to use something else for protection such as pepper spray or a taser. Yes, there would be some cases where having a gun would be safer than pepper spray or a taser, but those cases are rare. If people owned alternatives like I've talked about instead of guns then obviously gun related accidents would drop significantly. Legally, it is much more difficult and complicated but from an ideas only perspective, alternatives are overall better than guns.
 
Criminals don't come out of nowhere. Ordinary people can be instant law-breakers under some circumstances.

and so what? in a free country we don't punish people because they might-with no prior history or evidence-become law breakers. in a free country, those who would punish people for that reason should be treated as criminals themselves and dealt with accordingly
 
why do the anti gun extremists feel a need to jack this poll?
 
I have nothing against gun ownership. On the other hand, lately it seems that many Americans use gun rights as a way to hold the USA hostage. They want to hold a gun to everyones' head by pretending to merely be complaining for gun rights. What I suspect they want is a hostile takeover and to follow Pol Pot's idea for Cambodia inside America, force everyone into an agrarian lifestyle, set landmines everywhere to blow our legs off, then set up sanctions so we are all near death in understaffed hospitals without enough medicine.
 
I have nothing against gun ownership. On the other hand, lately it seems that many Americans use gun rights as a way to hold the USA hostage. They want to hold a gun to everyones' head by pretending to merely be complaining for gun rights. What I suspect they want is a hostile takeover and to follow Pol Pot's idea for Cambodia inside America, force everyone into an agrarian lifestyle, set landmines everywhere to blow our legs off, then set up sanctions so we are all near death in understaffed hospitals without enough medicine.

in more than 9 years on this board, I have seen tons of hysterically loony comments about gun owners and gun ownership. some come from big government fan boys who pretend that anyone who wants the same defensive weaponry as civilian police officers do so for the reason that such gun owners want to kill police officers. but this claim of yours comparing gun owners with a communist gun banner like Pol Pot might take the award.
 
What else would you expect of those who have an agenda that they know damn well cannot be successfuly promoted honestly, but only through lies and deception?

dishonesty is the bedrock foundation of the anti gun movement. the dishonesty comes from the fraudulent claim that crime control is what motivates their jihad against the rights of Americans
 
Walmart has really nothing to do with the story, that "accident" could happen anywhere, its the gun that is the issue not her little boy. I support her right to have a hand gun with her, however I think far too many people have them to feel a false sense of security. Trayvon Martin probably would be alive today if Zimmerman didn't have a gun with him. I don't own a gun and would not let one in our home unless it was a police officer that had it. My bother owned a gun and his grandson found it and committed suicide with it.

1st - Thanks for showing that you just did a knee jerk reaction rather than even bothering to read my (strangely short) post. My point wasn't about Walmart.

2nd - Your original point indicated NOTHING to do with "false sense of security". Your random personal anecdotes or your predictions also don't edit your point. Your original post I respond to was this:

The woman who was shot and killed by her two-year-old son at a Walmart in Idaho wasn't safe, if she didn't take her gun she would be alive today. She was less safe.

The ONLY argument you put forth there is that "If she didn't take her gun she would be alive today". That is the ONLY argument you put forth there. The logic of that argument is that without [x] then [y] would happen.

That exact same logic could be used to say that without her 2 year old there (the [x] in this case) she would be alive today (the [y]).

My statement regarding your "logic" in that post was dead on, and nothing you posted argues against that. The ONLY argument you actually made in that original post was that if ONE particular thing was different (not having the gun) than she'd be alive, and THEREFORE she as less safe.

My statement about her two year old used that exact same logic; and you've yet to show how that's not the case.

Now, if you want to admit that you were overly simplistic and hyperbolic in your initial comment and reasoning...and then add additional caveats and reasoning as to why she's "less safe" then be my guest. But if you want to ignore the fact that your original logic was amazingly broad and questionable, while trying to add a bunch of additional caveats and notions that you didn't actually claim onto it, then don't be surprised when you're called on such bull****.
 
1st - Thanks for showing that you just did a knee jerk reaction rather than even bothering to read my (strangely short) post. My point wasn't about Walmart.

2nd - Your original point indicated NOTHING to do with "false sense of security". Your random personal anecdotes or your predictions also don't edit your point. Your original post I respond to was this:



The ONLY argument you put forth there is that "If she didn't take her gun she would be alive today". That is the ONLY argument you put forth there. The logic of that argument is that without [x] then [y] would happen.

That exact same logic could be used to say that without her 2 year old there (the [x] in this case) she would be alive today (the [y]).

My statement regarding your "logic" in that post was dead on, and nothing you posted argues against that. The ONLY argument you actually made in that original post was that if ONE particular thing was different (not having the gun) than she'd be alive, and THEREFORE she as less safe.

My statement about her two year old used that exact same logic; and you've yet to show how that's not the case.

Now, if you want to admit that you were overly simplistic and hyperbolic in your initial comment and reasoning...and then add additional caveats and reasoning as to why she's "less safe" then be my guest. But if you want to ignore the fact that your original logic was amazingly broad and questionable, while trying to add a bunch of additional caveats and notions that you didn't actually claim onto it, then don't be surprised when you're called on such bull****.

Okay, my initial reaction was overly simplistic, but you reducing it to x and y is even worse. We are talking about a woman's life, not some math or logic problem. So even though your logic is the same, I am talking about human lives, not logic. The woman could have stopped taking her gun on trips to the store, but realistically she could not stop taking her son.

What makes this worse is that she was a gun advocate, not some willy nilly who happen to buy a gun. Her husband gave her a gift for Christmas that supposedly made the gun more safe.

I don't believe carrying a gun make you more safe. I don't think most people who carry them should as they're quite often used against them. Of course if the person had threats against their life, I would drop that.

I feel bad for her son, who probably will grow up knowing he killed his mother. Hopefully he'll growup well adjusted, but somehow I doubt he will. :(
 
in more than 9 years on this board, I have seen tons of hysterically loony comments about gun owners and gun ownership. some come from big government fan boys who pretend that anyone who wants the same defensive weaponry as civilian police officers do so for the reason that such gun owners want to kill police officers. but this claim of yours comparing gun owners with a communist gun banner like Pol Pot might take the award.

The Khmer Rouge had plenty of guns just like you. All they need is a Confederate Battle Flag. I'm going to start calling the Stars and Bars flag the "Red Khmer".

KR-celebrate-the-fall-of-PP-585x394.jpg

http://www.whale.to/b/colhoun.html
...relief organizations supplied the Khmer Rouge resistance movement with food and medicines.... In the Fall of 1979 the Khmer Rouge were the most desperate of all the refugees who came to the Thai-Kampuchean border. Throughout l900, however, their health rapidly improved, and relief organizations began questioning the legitimacy of feeding them. The Khmer Rouge. . . having regained strength...had begun actively fighting the Vietnamese. The relief organizations considered supporting the Khmer Rouge inconsistent with their humanitarian goals.... Yet Thailand, the country that hosted the relief operation, and the U.S. government, which funded the bulk of the relief operations, insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed.
 
Last edited:
yawn, typical far left gun hater silliness

I'm not a gun hater. I want the normal folks in El Salvador and Nicaragua and all such lands that are or were oppressed by dictatorships to have guns so they can fight the American government that seeks to oppress them through anti-union capitalist domination of their natural resources. I would gladly donate money to Mayan Indian civilians in El Salvador, so they can have the guns they need to fight against American domination. if these normal folks dont have guns, the US or CIA might back a junta against them and they can all be killed. Their priests will be killed like Óscar Romero, who was killed by people trained at the School of the Americas in the state of Georgia.

gallery222.jpg
 
Ummm, who are the "normal people" in El Salvador? And have you ever been there?
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I always feel less safe being armed than not. I mean, why would anyone want to be able to defend himself against an armed attack, when he could just stand there like a good victim?
 
I'm not a gun hater. I want the normal folks in El Salvador and Nicaragua and all such lands that are or were oppressed by dictatorships to have guns so they can fight the American government that seeks to oppress them through anti-union capitalist domination of their natural resources. I would gladly donate money to Mayan Indian civilians in El Salvador, so they can have the guns they need to fight against American domination. if these normal folks dont have guns, the US or CIA might back a junta against them and they can all be killed. Their priests will be killed like Óscar Romero, who was killed by people trained at the School of the Americas in the state of Georgia.

View attachment 67178393

do you have a che poster and a beret?:mrgreen:

USA Über alles!!
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I always feel less safe being armed than not. I mean, why would anyone want to be able to defend himself against an armed attack, when he could just stand there like a good victim?

didn't some clown-maybe Bobby Knight-say if rape is inevitable you might as well enjoy it?
 
do you have a che poster and a beret?:mrgreen:

USA Über alles!!

Nope, just a belief that the US government exploits Latin America, having nothing to do with Che or youth rebellion. Its merely something I believe to be a fact. My brain doesnt work well with contradictions. Also, I dont like American culture. And Europeans are no good either. The only thing left is Latin America. It makes logical sense.

 
Last edited:
Nope, just a belief that the US government exploits Latin America, having nothing to do with Che or youth rebellion. Its merely something I believe to be a fact. My brain doesnt work well with contradictions.

you happen to have any association with CISPES or the "Christic" Institute?
 
you happen to have any association with CISPES or the "Christic" Institute?

No, but they are very interesting. I did donate money to the SOAWatch though and even now I have a refrigerator magnet from them! :)

SOA Watch: Close the School of the Americas

I am not a communist. I merely think the USA is corrupt and filled with homicidal maniacs.

Its just funny how white Americans always go on about their guns but dont really want anyone else to have them. Like the US govt sent guns to Mexican government to fight the Mayan uprising against NAFTA. Its a peculiar double-standard.
 
Last edited:
No, but they are very interesting. I did donate money to the SOAWatch though and even now I have a refrigerator magnet from them! :)

SOA Watch: Close the School of the Americas


Robert K Brown-publisher of SOF magazine, labeled CISPES and the CI as KGB fronts

liberals derided him. The wall came down and former KGB operatives admitted that both groups were KGB fronts

SOA sounds like useful marxist idiots in all fairness

I went to shoot in Columbia one time in a world cup event. I had a surplus USMC bag. I get to Cali and all the soldiers at the Airport start straightening up when I walked by and a Captain who spoke really good English welcomed me to Columbia. SO I turn to one of Columbia's top shooters and asked him what was up. He said the soldiers were an elite anti terrorist group who had trained at the SOA and figured I was some Marine officer in civilian attire there to meet with one of the senior officers!
 
Nope, just a belief that the US government exploits Latin America, having nothing to do with Che or youth rebellion. Its merely something I believe to be a fact. My brain doesnt work well with contradictions. Also, I dont like American culture. And Europeans are no good either. The only thing left is Latin America. It makes logical sense.

I can assure you that if you haven't spent significant time in Central America, you don't have a clear understanding of the cultures or the political realities.
 
I can assure you that if you haven't spent significant time in Central America, you don't have a clear understanding of the cultures or the political realities.

Oh, but you the white conservative gun owner know all. You the white get a gun and you supply guns to rightwing governments that torture and imprison and disapear people in Latin America at whim in order to support your industry there, be it Coke or Chiquita, only you the white american arsehole understand the world. All normal people in these lands are slaves, and that is your great conclusion that nobody else can grasp. Give me a break. I wouldnt bat an eyelash if the entire white race was whiped off the planet, and why? Because of people like you. Corrupted American breed. Die out! Open the borders! Breed these American whites out of existence! I cant stand these people anymore. Something has to give!
 
Last edited:
This sounds racist. [emoji58]
 
This sounds racist. [emoji58]

Not as racist as what your good guys in the USA have been doing in Guatemala to prevent a "communism" that was a pure fabrication of your dumb self-important fantasy world, where you think you are the good guys with your guns defending democracy. The USA is not a nation for nice people but a nation for phonies and pseudo-christians. NICE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE TARGETED FOR KILLING BY AMERICA, THE LAND AGAINST PEACE.

 
Back
Top Bottom