Has anyone ever broken into your home and pointed a gun at you?

[mattj]

if someone is trying to burglarize you in the middle of the night, they aren't there to kill you.

I've heard this repeated several times here in this thread and elsewhere. Considering that people are attacked and sometimes killed by intruders nearly every single day, why should anyone assume this? How could anyone know the intentions of someone who has broken into their home?

 

[Lee]

the usefulness of a gun in a home invasion scenario is ultimately inapropos because no forward thinking person can ever claim to believe that something that offers dubious usefulness in a rare scenario could ever justify the thousands of murders that occur in the US every year as a direct result of gun ownership or the countless instances of robbery/rape that are enabled by gun ownership.

everything you have said reeks of desperation in the face of public opinion overwhelmingly shifting away from you. people like you are holding your country back.

 

[mattj]

no forward thinking person can ever claim to believe that something that offers dubious usefulness in a rare scenario could ever justify the thousands of murders that occur in the US every year as a direct result of gun ownership or the countless instances of robbery/rape that are enabled by gun ownership.

No crime has ever occurred because I own a gun. My family will be safer in the event of a home invasion though. I have no clue what you're going off about.

 

[Lee]

No crime has ever occurred because I own a gun. My family will be safer in the event of a home invasion though. I have no clue what you're going off about.

ignorance is bliss ~

 

[Stratos]

Yes, I am fully aware of the Constitution's innate ability to change. But if you read the actual words of the Second Amendment, you will see that the current interpretation is clearly erroneous.

The ironic part? The conservative justices who have continuously upheld the current interpretation have very often been originalists/strict constructionists. Morons.

im just saying if the right to bear arms cannot be abridged than what are you saying the justices are wrong about - if you say not allowing civilians to own tanks then yeah you're probably right but let's be sane here, and if you say that they can abridge the right to bear arms then what

 

[Imanalt]

No crime has ever occurred because I own a gun. My family will be safer in the event of a home invasion though. I have no clue what you're going off about.

It's not about your specific gun. You can not disagree that the ubiquity of guns in our culture causes some crime and death

 

[Stratos]

It's not about your specific gun. You can not disagree that the ubiquity of guns in our culture causes some crime and death

well considering our country was founded on the principle of "spock's dying words are bullshit" (spock's dying words were 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,' for you unclean) then mattj has a point

whether that's an acceptable attitude to have in this day and age...

 

[Pernicious]

i think the point lee is making is

there are guns released into the world because there are no gun control laws. obviously and naturally, you can't stem the sale and release of guns to just you and your house. because of this greater number of guns, there are more guns held by murderers/rapists/robbers. and there are also more guns held by american families. even though american families are (and, like lee said, this point is dubious because it's really tricky to successfully disable a robber or whatever in your own home) safer in the event of home invasion, that shaky safety doesn't justify the crimes that are committed by everyone else in that scenario, who owns guns.

in your counter example you restricted the guns to just your house. the crimes aren't committed by good people like you. they are committed by criminals. i'm technically not arguing, just explicating the point for you further.

edit: ninja'd twice over. OH WELL

 

[Lee]

thanks pernicious but he knew exactly what i was saying

oh and

hehe

 

[mirza]

I disagree 100% with banning all guns from private ownership.

Personal anecdotes: My cousin was driving through Nashville one morning when some guy jumped in his backseat. He instantly pulled his pistol out and told the guy to get the fuck out. He complied. Another time at a party a couple of drunken animals showed up threatening people. A gun shooed them away. The next day they came and apologized. Another time a friend of mine was being robbed by a guy with a knife. Soon as the gun was drawn the guy ran off.

Now you tell me how you'd handle these 3 situations without a gun. Are you going to wrestle with the guy inside your own car? What if he has a knife? Yeah it's cool to comply with him but are you honestly telling me you'd let him drive off with your car with your son in the babyseat? I don't think so.

In the second scenario you're dealing with drunk felons looking to kick someone's ass. Not much is going to deter them, and before you start crying 'call 911' let's not forget the police aren't ever in a hurry.

And the third scenario is obvious. Knife vs gun. The robber knew he was beaten. Now if he had a gun and is attempting to rob you the smart thing to do is to comply and live another day.


This country has major issues with gun laws. People can buy guns from each other without a background check, they can order 100 round magazines off ebay, they can purchase AK47's and other military weapons freely, they can buy armor-piercing rounds, scatter rounds, etc etc. This stuff needs to change. I would never support a ban gun ownership altogether though.

Even in countries with strict regulations people DO own guns. In Japan you can't buy a gun but you can buy individual pieces and put it together yourself. People do that. Trust me. They do it without waving them around like we're used to over here. There is no reason why responsible people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves ESPECIALLY in their own homes from burglars.

Finally I disagree with the saying 'A gun's only purpose is to kill.' Smart people use them to deter, not kill. I think it's ignorant to completely ban all guns but it's INSANE to keep things the way they are in the U.S.

 

[DM]

How can you interpret that to be anything else? .-.

im just saying if the right to bear arms cannot be abridged than what are you saying the justices are wrong about - if you say not allowing civilians to own tanks then yeah you're probably right but let's be sane here, and if you say that they can abridge the right to bear arms then what

I have a very simple question for you both: have you ever even READ the Second Amendment? Tell me exactly what it says.

The sad part is I'm quite sure the vast majority of my Canadian and European friends can answer this question much more accurately than my American friends.

 

[Solace]

How can you interpret that to be anything else? .-.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia is where the interpretation lies. Depending on how you read into the amendment, it can either mean that every person has the right to own a gun, or only those that are in a well-regulated militia. Based on the late 1700s, (think the minutemen), that's basically a mini-state army to prevent the federal government from taking over the whole country in the same way that the English king had done when they were colonies. However, that didn't necessarily mean that every person was to run around with a gun. It meant that states could have standing armies with weapons and the government had no right to take those weapons away. It didn't mean that every person was to take their life into their own hands against a hostile government takeover like the world is an action movie. And considering that the country still has state defense forces, isn't that the well-regulated militia that already has the guns needed to protect the people?

No one can really attempt to know exactly what was meant by the right to bear arms in the 1790s, but I really think it was more focused on the militia, and not the individual owning an assault rifle that can blow off 100 people's faces without having to reload.

I mean, when the amendment was written the big technology of the day was a gun with a foot-long sharp piece of metal to stab you with and people fought wars in bright outfits and lined up to shoot at each other. IDK I think things have changed just a little bit?????

edit: dm kinda ninja'd me but there you go now you can read the 2nd amendment without having to even google it!!

 

[Ace Emerald]

This article is very fair about the issue. It essentially backs up Solace's post and says that the definition of the second amendment has drastically changed over the years, and we really have to interpret it in a way that is beneficial to public safety. Eliminating all firearms is impossibly difficult, but I have yet to hear one good argument on why we should not enforce restrictions on gun power. If anyone has one, I'm all ears.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The idea of a modern militia to keep the federal government in check is so dated anyway. I mean, the fed has nukes. :/

The second Amendment was written for a different era, with different concerns. I personally would be fine with completely banning weapon/ammunition sales, but at the very least we should invoke extremely tight regulation. Things are simply not acceptable as they are.

 

[MegaBuddha]

The Feds are unlikely to nuke their own county land in a civil war

 

[Stratos]

The Feds are unlikely to nuke their own county land in a civil war

why dont we ask katniss everdeen

 

[blitzlefan]

I don't see how I can actually practice shooting criminals. I am not a cop and I have not been in a scenario where I needed to use deadly force. So to answer your question no lol.I do however shoot every few weeks when I have the time, my shot is accurate and I don't take them all standing still like a moron. No real need to show evidence for my skill. I'll have it when it is needed. Most criminals don't actually wish to commit murder on their victims it is a power tool. If they mean actual harm to my family aside from robbery I'll take my shot at them. The last thing I'll ever do is be tied up and watched my family rapped or murdered. Have some dignity.

And OK, I apologize for repeating that information without doubling checking. Your correction really doesn't change anything otherwise.

Imanalt: The criminal isn't expecting to be met with resistance. There is an element of surprise taking a pistol out of your pocket instead of you money and immediately firing. Criminals are after more than just senseless murder, $$$. They aren't truly committed to killing someone as one should be with a gun pointed at them. At night with no one around I have my eye on anyone who approaches me as soon as they are in sight coming my way. In a mass shooting the presence of guns in the citizens hands is even more important. Teachers in Israel carry assault rifles for a reason.

Wow Logan, with all your "quick draw" remarks, have you ever considered becoming a bodyguard or perhaps an assassin? Because the way you describe it, it doesn't matter who comes at you, you can just whip out your weapon and shoot them dead. IMO, if there were fewer weapons there would be fewer crimes. If you don't have a weapon, you're probs not a threat to the assailant, making you less likely to be killed. Why would they kill you if there's no reason to? No robber comes into your house planning to kill you!

 

[moot]

No crime has ever occurred because I own a gun.

You do realise how incredibly fallacious this is, right? The fact that no crime has ever happened to you is completely different from whether or not you pack heat. It's there to make yourself feel better, regardless of whether or not it will end up doing what you intend it to do. Additionally, I seriously doubt even 10% of the people who own firearms for home safety are properly trained in their usage. They're people like you, who simply intend to delude themselves into thinking they are safe just by owning a weapon as possibly deadly as their intruder. Save yourself a little money and possibly your own life via accidental death and invest in a home security system instead.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I support the right to own guns so when the world revolution comes the proletariat can more easily overthrow the bourgeoisie. :D

Take that more moderate liberals, I just flipped the script!

 

[Chou Toshio]

The Feds are unlikely to nuke their own county land in a civil war

The point is that armed civilians would be a joke in front of the federal government's armed forces. Training, tactics, technology-- it's just a different era from when the colonists overthrew the Brittish forces.

No crime has ever occurred because I own a gun.

Fixed: Heinous crimes have been allowed to occur in part because of the same system that allowed me to buy my gun.

 

[mattj]

You do realise how incredibly fallacious this is, right? The fact that no crime has ever happened to you is completely different from whether or not you pack heat. It's there to make yourself feel better, regardless of whether or not it will end up doing what you intend it to do. Additionally, I seriously doubt even 10% of the people who own firearms for home safety are properly trained in their usage. They're people like you, who simply intend to delude themselves into thinking they are safe just by owning a weapon as possibly deadly as their intruder. Save yourself a little money and possibly your own life via accidental death and invest in a home security system instead.

Calm down and read what he said to me, and what I said back to him. Although I disagree with him, Chou Toshio understood what I said.

Fixed: Heinous crimes have been allowed to occur in part because of the same system that allowed me to buy my gun.

I don't see how the fact that American citizens can legally own guns has ever in-and-of-itself led to a single criminal death. People intentionally kill other people with cars, bats, knives, or any other tool they can get their hands every single day. Are you saying that you and I are allowing heinous crimes to be committed by allowing the continued ownership, under current regulation, of those tools?

 

[mirza]

Some of you sound like you think we're all retarded and a gun in our hands might as well be lit dynomite. Not to stray off topic too much but I come from a country where our government disarmed us (Bosnian-Muslims) and started killing us soon after. Fuck me for having trust issues with government or low lives breaking into my house. When civil war started in Bosnia the first few kills from my birthplace came from rocks believe it or not. Don't underestimate human spirit and sell us all so short. You'd miss your guns quickly if your government did the same to you.

This country needs education, reform in treatment of mental patients, strict gun control, but I still see ZERO reason to completely disarm law-abiding citizens. You can't commit mass murder with 1 pistol and a few rounds, you need military weapons for that.


edit: matj- Yeah we are to blame because we like our assault rifles and sniper rifles too much. They have no place in normal society.

 

[MegaBuddha]

The sheer amount of people with guns America isn't a force to take lightly. I expect patriots and ex military as well as many current police and military would not side with a breach in our second amendment. There are people that can hack drones with laptops. People would find ways to level the playing field (guerrilla paint attacks? No visor helmet lol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Wsy8jHPk4

I support the right to own guns so when the world revolution comes the proletariat can more easily overthrow the bourgeoisie. :D

Take that more moderate liberals, I just flipped the script!

:naughty::naughty:

 

[Phadunk]

A rage driver pointed a gun at me on the highway here in Illinois.. all because I wasn't going fast enough and wouldn't change lanes.

I was in the middle lane.. the hell.

Wasn't scary as it was really strange. Probably because I didn't think of it as an instant fear for your life moment until it was all said and done and it sunk in.

Crazy fucks.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I don't see how the fact that American citizens can legally own guns has ever in-and-of-itself led to a single criminal death.

Fixed: Heinous crimes have been allowed to occur in part because of the same system that allowed me to buy my gun.

>.<

I personally would be fine with completely banning weapon/ammunition sales, but at the very least we should invoke extremely tight regulation. Things are simply not acceptable as they are.

Even if we allow Americans to own guns, the regulation can be (and should be) a lot tighter.

People intentionally kill other people with cars, bats, knives, or any other tool they can get their hands every single day. Are you saying that you and I are allowing heinous crimes to be committed by allowing the continued ownership, under current regulation, of those tools?

Yes.