So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The Australian experience suggests that the vast majority of people would stack their guns up neatly.

You seem to think that Australia and the US are that much alike. The Australian experience showed us that only 70% turned in their guns. That would leave 24 million gun owners still holding onto 105 million guns, and all of the criminals who possess them now.

The ones who don't should ask David Koresh how things worked out for him.

24 million people with 105 million guns. You're going to need a bigger police state.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

He's not here to debate. He's here to bluster and troll.

On the contrary, I am being accused of trolling even though I've stated my case; provided detail; given constitutional documentation; refrained from engaging in insults; and stuck around all day.

I'll say it one last time: I'd owe you legal justification for taking your weapons. But I would be under no obligation to share my true motivations with you.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

On the contrary, I am being accused of trolling even though I've stated my case; provided detail; given constitutional documentation; refrained from engaging in insults; and stuck around all day.

I'll say it one last time: I'd owe you legal justification for taking your weapons. But I would be under no obligation to share my true intentions with you.

There is no constitutional justification for you and your ilk to confiscate weapons from the populace at all. Your true intentions in your pipe dream world are irrelevant.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

There is no constitutional justification for you and your ilk to confiscate weapons from the populace at all. Your true intentions in your pipe dream world are irrelevant.

In the future, I'll remember the hospitality to which you treated me today.

 

[Renae]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/witness-homeowner-killed-during-north-charleston-home-invasion

A sad tragedy. This man was a member of one of those neighborhood chat groups on facebook I'm in. I've never met the man, but his facebook page is filled with right-wing propaganda and just one week before this happened shared a video of Archie Bunker railing on gun control. The details from the article are sparse, but from what I understand at least two men entered his home around 1 in the morning, and this guy tried to play Dirty Harry only to end up getting himself shot and killed. Police believe it was a random event. A couple of thugs were likely looking for a quick score. Trying to grab a laptop a cell phone some loose change laying around. They probably didn't even think the guy was home and would have easily left without incident had he not surprised them and confronted them. This guy was a military vet. He knew how to handle guns. He knew the layout of his home better than the intruders, yet he still lost the fight.

It's obviously sad, but this is the reality you face when you decide you're going to protect your stuff. Obviously, we can't know everything that happened here, but if he stayed out of sight and just yelled at them to leave from another room they probably would have bolted once they realized someone was home. Anything he might have lost would have been covered by homeowners insurance. Instead, he tried to be a hero and lost his life.

So to recap, the odds of having your home broken into are already insanely low. Even if your home is broken into, odds are very low you'll be home. Even if you're home your odds of even getting to your gun aren't good unless you keep it loaded and on your person at all times. If you do that though you're at risk of an accidental shooting that could result in the death of yourself or a loved one. And even if you just happen to be in the right place at the right time with your loaded gun ready to defend yourself you're still starting a shootout inside your home that you could easily lose no matter how good you think you are with your gun.

Your best defense in a home invasion is not a gun. It's a deadbolt, a motion sensor light, a decent sized dog with a loud bark, and an understanding that unless you have specific enemies they are almost certainly not here to kill you.

Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive? Of course you do, because in the rare chance you're in a wreck you want to be as safe as possible. That's a reason people own guns for their homes, in case that moment comes they improve their odds of self defense greatly.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

In the future, I'll remember the hospitality to which you treated me today.

You aren't here to debate. Why are you here?

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The Australian experience suggests that the vast majority of people would stack their guns up neatly.

The ones who don't should ask David Koresh how things worked out for him.

House to house? Really?

America was revolted by Waco and our own military (which would be illegal) and LE would not just outright threaten, much less act, on families. That would end real fast after a few media blasts. Our own people would not turn on us, at least not most.

And btw, they'd have to go to every single home, since there actually is no record of everyone that has guns and this is a good reason to make sure we never do. Thanks for reinforcing that.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You seem to think that Australia and the US are that much alike. The Australian experience showed us that only 70% turned in their guns. That would leave 24 million gun owners still holding onto 105 million guns, and all of the criminals who possess them now.



24 million people with 105 million guns. You're going to need a bigger police state.

70%!!! Wow that is great!!!

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Nice try. The fact is you're fine with people carrying around weapons that they don't know how to use being a danger to themselves and anybody around them.

?? Guns are simple to use. Add bullets, point, pull trigger.

Safety training: dont point gun at anything you dont want to destroy, keep your finger off trigger unless you need to destroy something, make sure guns are secure around minors and prohibited persons.

That will be $158 please.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

?? Guns are simple to use. Add bullets, point, pull trigger.

Safety training: dont point gun at anything you dont want to destroy, keep your finger off trigger unless you need to destroy something, make sure guns are secure around minors and prohibited persons.

That will be $158 please.

If that is all you know about guns you are an irresponsible gun owner

And there are actually 4 basic rules and you didn't even get those right

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

If that is all you know about guns you are an irresponsible gun owner

And there are actually 4 basic rules and you didn't even get those right

I know the 4 rules. I didnt choose to write them all out. And I added more.

So your speculation is wrong, again.

 

[tac138777]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Nice try. The fact is you're fine with people carrying around weapons that they don't know how to use being a danger to themselves and anybody around them.

You claim that. But you don’t have any evidence.

People take driving tests and still manage to kill and maim plenty of people. Somehow people handle guns just fine without required training. Boowhoo.

We both know your end game is to ban guns. You could care less if you disarm some poor young woman who lives in bad neighborhood or a farmer who lives in the middle of nowhere. You want to believe guns are the problem because you can’t think for yourself on the topic. The problem is people. Not guns.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

I know the 4 rules. I didnt choose to write them all out. And I added more.

So your speculation is wrong, again.

You failed miserably. LOL This is the reason for mandatory training. Some people THINK they know gun safety.


You made my case brilliantly. LOL

 

[tac138777]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

If that is all you know about guns you are an irresponsible gun owner

And there are actually 4 basic rules and you didn't even get those right

Elaborate what his rules don’t cover please? You mean treat it like it is loaded and know what is behind your target? Yea. Real friggin complicated. Lmao! So you want to restrict our rights even though millions of people handle those rules effectively every day?

How about this. You start charging $200 on responsible speech classes. See how far that gets you. Or charge $200 for a card that requires officers to have probable cause to search you. :eye roll:

Limit rights to the rich. That’s your solution. Sounds real “democratic.” No wonder responsible adults don’t listen to democrats on guns.

 

[tac138777]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You failed miserably. LOL This is the reason for mandatory training. Some people THINK they know gun safety.


You made my case brilliantly. LOL

You realize if you follow his rules you will never have an accident right?

 

[marke]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

If that is all you know about guns you are an irresponsible gun owner

And there are actually 4 basic rules and you didn't even get those right

I bought my first rifle when I was 12. I bought my first pistol when I was 14. I did not take gun safety courses and the guns were not registered. There was a mass shooting in my town around the same time in my young life but nobody blamed the tragedy on guns. Nobody got twisted in a bunch over the fact that almost everybody owned guns. The violence would not have been avoided if the state had previously outlawed gun ownership.

When nobody has guns then gangsters with guns start coming out of the woodwork. Just because gangsters are not coming out of the woodwork now because so many people own guns does not mean they will not show up armed after guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297]

Moderator's Warning:

Some action has already been taken and this is the last time I'm issuing a warning in this thread. There is a topic here: STICK TO IT. If you are discussing other posters you're going to find yourself with points and/or a thread ban. If you're insulting other posters as "snowflakes" or other flames you're going to find yourself with points and/or a thread ban. If your post is simply present to bait and troll and makes little to no attempt to discuss the topic you're going to be out of this thread.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You failed miserably. LOL This is the reason for mandatory training. Some people THINK they know gun safety.

You made my case brilliantly. LOL

No, I posted excellent safety training and failed nothing but now you are trying to cover up you own miserable failure by lying about mine.

Remember, lying only leads to more vegassing, not discussion.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You realize if you follow his rules you will never have an accident right?

"Her" rules and thank you.

They were very precise and specific.

The uninformed just dont know any better.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

The ones who don't should ask David Koresh how things worked out for him.

Ask the Federal government. 19 April 1993, the Federal government murdered 76 people of all races, genders, ages and walks of life.

Do you know the one thing all of them have in common?

 

[Howard the Duck]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Ask the Federal government. 19 April 1993, the Federal government murdered 76 people of all races, genders, ages and walks of life.

Do you know the one thing all of them had in common?

Yes. They resisted arrest.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Yes. They resisted arrest.

No. Many of them were not under arrest or wanted for arrest. The one thing they all had in common is they didn't pay a dime in Federal taxes in 1994.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Prove that this is an issue. Show that there is a significant number of people who legally own guns, carry them in public and have no training. Show that this has resulted in a danger to the public resulting in deaths and injuries.

Much ado about nothing as usual.

People can buy guns and try and protect their homes and themselves all they want, but if they don't take the time to train, then their right under the second amendment is going to get them or a family member killed.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You claim that. But you don’t have any evidence.

People take driving tests and still manage to kill and maim plenty of people. Somehow people handle guns just fine without required training. Boowhoo.

We both know your end game is to ban guns. You could care less if you disarm some poor young woman who lives in bad neighborhood or a farmer who lives in the middle of nowhere. You want to believe guns are the problem because you can’t think for yourself on the topic. The problem is people. Not guns.

You're giving me all the evidence I need by not denying what I've said about your agreement to guns and no training. And, as a gun owner -- why would I want to ban guns?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

People can buy guns and try and protect their homes and themselves all they want, but if they don't take the time to train, then their right under the second amendment is going to get them or a family member killed.

It might; the vast majority of the time it does not. I encourage gun owners to get training. I just don't believe that it should be mandatory, with the requirements set by Democrats who don't know anything about guns, safety or training.