guns

[soberups]

I dont see how you simply place your survival on a gun? There are better doors, better securities for windows, alarms, perimeter security, DOGS and your fists.

What did people do before the invention of guns for security? Oh yeah, they were called Dogs.

TOS.

A properly trained guard/attack dog represents an investment of many thousands of dollars, and can easily be defeated by a thug armed with a stolen/ illegally obtained $100 pistol.

Security doors and barred windows represent an investment of thousands of dollars and can easily be defeated by a criminal with basic burglar tools.

Martial arts training represents an investment of many thousands of dollars, and can easily be defeated by a thug with a stolen gun, an edged weapon, or an advantage in numbers.

What suggestions do you offer for the elderly? For the handicapped? For women with abusive ex boyfriends that outweigh them by 100 lbs? For people in rural areas with 45 minute response times to a 911 call? For people who simply cannot afford thousands of dollars for dogs and bars and alarms and membership in exclusive gated communities?

If you want to bring your dog and a pair of fists to a gunfight with an armed assailant, by all means do so. If you want to call armed representatives of your nanny-state government to come and protect you and your family from an armed assailant, by all means do so. Best of luck to you!

 

[The Other Side]

A properly trained guard/attack dog represents an investment of many thousands of dollars, and can easily be defeated by a thug armed with a stolen/ illegally obtained $100 pistol.

Security doors and barred windows represent an investment of thousands of dollars and can easily be defeated by a criminal with basic burglar tools.

Martial arts training represents an investment of many thousands of dollars, and can easily be defeated by a thug with a stolen gun, an edged weapon, or an advantage in numbers.

What suggestions do you offer for the elderly? For the handicapped? For women with abusive ex boyfriends that outweigh them by 100 lbs? For people in rural areas with 45 minute response times to a 911 call? For people who simply cannot afford thousands of dollars for dogs and bars and alarms and membership in exclusive gated communities?

If you want to bring your dog and a pair of fists to a gunfight with an armed assailant, by all means do so. If you want to call armed representatives of your nanny-state government to come and protect you and your family from an armed assailant, by all means do so. Best of luck to you!

Ive been clear on this board with respect to rural areas. GUNS are ok for self protection, but NOT for inner cities or major populace areas where most of the domestic violence with guns occurs.

GUNS and the availability of them in the home always leads to murders of wives, children and neighbors, yet, the gun owners want to dismiss this fact. They want to simply ignore the fact that the majority of deaths are domestic violence incidents and not robberies or home intrusions.

If this country had a problem with home intrusions on a grand scale, then GUNS in the home would be the norm for all people. Home invasions make up a small percentage of crimes in this county compared to a husband shooting his wife, children or coworkers.

They are NOT equal, yet gun owners want to inflate the fear of such things.

If you live a rural area and response time is longer than 10 minutes, by all means, protect yourself. But if you live in a major city as I do, the need for a gun is foolish.

TOS.

 

[rod]

Insane? Why, because I dont live in fear? Thats your interpretation of insane? I chose to live where I dont have to live my life peeping out windows or worrying that my neighbors are going to rob me. Of course, I dont live the trailer park experience, so mine may be different than yours.

Sorry, by the way, where did you get your phd from again?

TOS.

How do you explain why almost every time they interview the neighbors after a murder or something major like that (not counting in the hood) they always say things like" "stuff like that don't happen in this neighborhood". There is no such thing as a safe neighborhood----anywhere. You seem to think just because you feel safe-- you are. I live on a private road out in the middle of no where but that don't mean some thug isn't going to have a break down on the highway two miles away and find his way to my house. I would rather be prepared (that's old Boy Scout training by the way) to defend myself rather than have to rely on law enforcement----- which has been proven before not to be able to find my house. I DON"T live in fear---simply because I am able to defend myself-- if need be.

 

[Rainman]

Ive been clear on this board with respect to rural areas. GUNS are ok for self protection, but NOT for inner cities or major populace areas where most of the domestic violence with guns occurs.

GUNS and the availability of them in the home always leads to murders of wives, children and neighbors, yet, the gun owners want to dismiss this fact. They want to simply ignore the fact that the majority of deaths are domestic violence incidents and not robberies or home intrusions.

If this country had a problem with home intrusions on a grand scale, then GUNS in the home would be the norm for all people. Home invasions make up a small percentage of crimes in this county compared to a husband shooting his wife, children or coworkers.

They are NOT equal, yet gun owners want to inflate the fear of such things.

If you live a rural area and response time is longer than 10 minutes, by all means, protect yourself. But if you live in a major city as I do, the need for a gun is foolish.

TOS.

Guns and the availability of them do NOT always lead to murders of wives, family members, ect. Sometimes guns are what keep these people alive. If some person is going to commit crimes such as this against others and they don't have a gun available, they will simply choose another weapon. What you are advocating is to disarm the people who need protection the most. If someone is going to harm another person, they will always find a way. The inner city areas are more dangerous places to live than the rural areas, yet you don't want to allow the people who live there to have the ability to protect themselves. These are some of the people who are most at risk. Sadly, some people go off the deep end and use guns to harm others. That is tragic. But most gun owners are law abiding citiZens, and people like that don't make the news. To take isolated cases that make up a small percentage of gun usage and to say the ownership of guns except in certain cases should be illegal, this is simply wrong. If you don't wish to have a gum, I'm sure that everyone else will respect your decision. I certainly do respect it. Please respect my decision to have and keep the right to defend myself. On previous posts you mentioned other ways to defend yourself, but I prefer to keep any assailant at the the furthest distance possible.to reduce ris to myself and my family.


Sent using BrownCafe App

 

[oldngray]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-california-39-concealed-weapons-rules-200215313.html
Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules

 

[Johney]

Insane? Why, because I dont live in fear? Thats your interpretation of insane? I chose to live where I dont have to live my life peeping out windows or worrying that my neighbors are going to rob me. Of course, I dont live the trailer park experience, so mine may be different than yours.

Sorry, by the way, where did you get your phd from again?

TOS.

Go ahead and live in your rainbow and buttercup world there tough guy I really hope you never live to eat those words.
Oh and my PHD came from the NRA.

 

[moreluck]

 

[BigUnionGuy]

 

[The Other Side]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

YA, more guns more guns!

TOS

 

[moreluck]

Why in the hell would you post a picture like that ????? I hope you get banned for that !!!!

 

[The Other Side]

Why in the hell would you post a picture like that ????? I hope you get banned for that !!!!

The picture is real, its a gun owner. This is what "some" gun owners do. Did you miss the attached story about injuries to children and teens by guns?

1 + 1 still equals 2. The picture mirrored the link i posted.

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

Contrary to what many people believe, high school shootings have actually been falling over the last two decades
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...un-violence-ignore-reality/?intcmp=latestnews

 

[The Other Side]

Everybody runs away from the link to the numerous children killed or injured by guns... Its just TOO real to address. Better to ignore the facts and phoney up the self protection aspect of guns.

Pretty sad state in this country when children can be killed or injured by guns and then ignored.

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

Most "children" killed by guns are teenage gang related. Not the innocent little elementary school children the media tries to portray the situation as.

 

[The Other Side]

Most "children" killed by guns are teenage gang related. Not the innocent little elementary school children the media tries to portray the situation as.

Did you read the study or this another attempt of deflecting away from the facts?

And please, try not to toss in chicago in your response.

TOS.

 

[moreluck]

because Chicago is part of Zaire ???

 

[oldngray]

because Chicago is part of Zaire ???

Chicago is worse than Zaire but not as bad as Detroit.

 

[oldngray]

Did you read the study or this another attempt of deflecting away from the facts?

And please, try not to toss in chicago in your response.

TOS.

No, I was presenting facts. As painful as it is to you and how it doesn't line up with your view of reality.

Here is a link from PBS which you can't lump in with Fox News : http://www.pbs.org/inthemix/shows/show_gun_violence.html

And I wasn't going to mention Chicago but since you brought up that point first : http://www.redlineproject.org/gunyouthviolence.php

 

[The Other Side]

No, I was presenting facts. As painful as it is to you and how it doesn't line up with your view of reality.

Here is a link from PBS which you can't lump in with Fox News : http://www.pbs.org/inthemix/shows/show_gun_violence.html

And I wasn't going to mention Chicago but since you brought up that point first : http://www.redlineproject.org/gunyouthviolence.php

Good link, but it doesnt prove that gang teens are killed more than just plain kids and teens as my linked study demonstrated. Thats just a story about TEENS who use guns.

Again, "USE GUNS" to kill or be killed.

Not very helpful to your argument.

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

Good link, but it doesnt prove that gang teens are killed more than just plain kids and teens as my linked study demonstrated. Thats just a story about TEENS who use guns.

Again, "USE GUNS" to kill or be killed.

Not very helpful to your argument.

TOS.

Your link used data from Brady which is deceptive of the actual numbers. Your "study" was just an editorial which proved nothing.

http://www.teenviolencestatistics.com/content/youth-violence-statistics.html

And as to any argument about more control you must first admit that teens with guns are already breaking current laws which would not allow them to legally carry.