Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lights and sirens

Closed window shades and the TV is on.

Seriously?! while you're sleeping?

Who said anything about anyone being asleep?

Grasping at straws. The odds of successfully defending yourself greatly outweigh the odds of that happening.

It's a weak one, I'll grant. But it is still possible, which was really the only thing I was saying.

The teenager knows you have the gun, don't they?

Teenagers always think everything through and never make mistakes now?

My only point here was in response to Josh's claim that no one busting down his door could possibly be innocent and that shooting first is the smart thing to do. I was illustrating scenarios where a misunderstanding could take place directly in response to what he said.

How about this? What if someone breaks into your house to kill you and rape your wife?

Then that would be genuinely terrible thing. What's your point, exactly? And how does it relate to the point I was making?
 
Last edited:
It's supposed to be. If more thieves and psychos were scared of getting shot on sight, less would break in.
You have to understand what motivates these thieves and psychos. Yes, there are those out there that legitimately just want to harm others but, most, are desperate thieves who are willing to take outrageous risks for personal gain. They don't feel they have any other option but to steal. I'm not excusing what they're doing, I'm just explaining that, yes, they do fear getting shot by a homeowner. Their desperation just outweighs that fear.
 
I'm not saying someone knocks on your door, break out the shotgun.

But if it's in the middle of the night, and you hear somebody downstairs (granted this wouldn't be an issue for me, since I have dogs), and I yell, and I get no response, I'm breaking something out.
 
Then that would be genuinely terrible thing. What's your point, exactly? And how does it relate to the point I was making?

You were throwing out random made up scenarios, some of which were quite grasping, against guns.

I threw out a scenario, which does happen, in defense of guns.
 
You were throwing out random made up scenarios, some of which were quite grasping, against guns.

Except I wasn't doing that. I was throwing out random made up scenarios, one of which was quite grasping, against Josh's statement that his policy of "shoot first" could never result in killing an innocent person due to a misunderstanding.


I threw out a scenario, which does happen, in defense of guns.

Not that often. Certainly not more often than someone's kid bringing home a friend late at night and forgetting to tell them.
 
Well let's call a spade a spade, many guns people claim it's their freedom to have because it's our god given right to own guns to "protect ourselves", aren't needed for protection purposes. To act or at least imply like every single gun falls under that set of rules is a bunch of BS. I am not saying ban all guns that aren't for protection purposes either(ie I have no problems with hunting guns for instance) but don't tell me it's your god given constitutional right to own a m16 to protect yourself(basically don't classify every single gun people buy as "protection" as if they all the same and somehow hold true to the 2nd amendment)
God given right? I didn't know that God was Chinese.
 
You have to understand what motivates these thieves and psychos. Yes, there are those out there that legitimately just want to harm others but, most, are desperate thieves who are willing to take outrageous risks for personal gain. They don't feel they have any other option but to steal. I'm not excusing what they're doing, I'm just explaining that, yes, they do fear getting shot by a homeowner. Their desperation just outweighs that fear.
I'm not morally bound to consider any viewpoint regarding someone intent on either stealing from me, or hurting myself and/or those I love. The moment they either trespass on my property, or assault someone I hold dear, they're fair game. They made their choice to risk getting hurt or killed themselves, and they'll pay the penalty.
 
Who wants to work towards peace and dissipating violence when you can shoot someone. Yee haw!
 
Who wants to work towards peace and dissipating violence when you can shoot someone. Yee haw!

So letting someone invade your property is working towards peace and dissipating violence?


One has nothing to do with the other. It's rather naive to work on making a better world, but not defend oneself until it is.
 
Joshua was talking about not giving a crap at all about the reasons why someone might break into someone else's home. I realize a lot of people wouldn't, but when you understand that a lot of thefts take place because of necessity and not greed, you come to realize that it's a societal issue, not a personal one. Other countries have figured it out and have a lower crime rate because of it.

Ps. I went to school for Criminology so I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the stats.
 
Getting rid of guns in homes won't solve crime and poverty.

Getting rid of crime and poverty will reduce the number of guns in homes.


If someone breaks into your home, you can't ask them why. It's not a risk worth taking.
 
I understand that. But I don't think shooting on sight is a logical reaction either. It sounds like Joshua would pull the trigger automatically without a second thought. That's terrifying. Trigger happy people shouldn't own guns. If one innocent person dies because of it, it's one person too many.
 
Joshua was talking about not giving a crap at all about the reasons why someone might break into someone else's home. I realize a lot of people wouldn't, but when you understand that a lot of thefts take place because of necessity and not greed, you come to realize that it's a societal issue, not a personal one. Other countries have figured it out and have a lower crime rate because of it.

Ps. I went to school for Criminology so I'm not making this stuff up. It's in the stats.
As the saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." :)

I understand that. But I don't think shooting on sight is a logical reaction either. It sounds like Joshua would pull the trigger automatically without a second thought. That's terrifying. Trigger happy people shouldn't own guns. If one innocent person dies because of it, it's one person too many.
I wouldn't like having to shoot anyone, but if it meant protecting those I love and/or my property, so be it. My main point is that unless someone is mentally unstable or has a history of arbitrary violence, the government shouldn't decide whether they own or carry any firearm, publicly or privately. The mass media's created tons of hysteria since before Columbine, depicting anyone in favor of personal protection as the cultural equivalent of crazies like Harris & Klebold.

Its been said many times, but bears repeating: the weapon itself is not to blame, just those who use them irresponsibly. People determined to do evil will find a way, and more laws aren't the answer. Crooks don't care about the law, so adding more just restricts lawful citizens from protecting themselves.
 
Your odds of getting killed increase if you own a gun. Chances are somebody breaks into your house they just want to steal something, now the second they see the gun they will get scared and it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment. Add to that accidental deaths due to misfiring a gun, you are safer without one.

Home invasions are happening frequently in my hometown. Some of them have ended up as property thefts, some as kidnappings, and some ended in murder. I would argue that the prepared and trained person should give a swift and violent response to this sort of crime.
However, there is something to be said for identifying your target before firing.

I would argue (as wiegeabo did), that RESPONSIBLE gun owners who receive good training and keep the appropriate mindset are likely to NEVER have any sort of gun accident.

As I said when it becomes a who will shoot the other guy first moment, your odds of getting killed are increased. That being said your odds of getting something stolen from you decrease but I would say life is more valuable then any physical property(But hey that is just me).


Life is more valuable than property, I think almost anyone would agree with that. Which is why it is important to be prepared to defend both as I stated above.

Assuming anyone who breaks into your home is only there to steal is a mistake, because you don't know them. Better to shoot first as they walk through the door, than risk anything else happening.

Unless you invite them, no one has the inherent right to invade your home for any reason...period.

Legally (speaking about Georgia law for the moment), this is perfectly acceptable. That said, see what I said about target identification above.

It has less to do with a home invader using your gun on you during a robbery and more to do with the fact that, statistically speaking, a home invasion is much less likely to end in violence if the home owner doesn't brandish a weapon on the criminal. The vast majority of home invaders are looking to steal things, not kill people, and the vast majority of both thieves and private gun owners don't have the training or the experience necessary to handle an armed stand off correctly.

A policy which drastically increases the likelihood of killing an innocent person due to a misunderstanding.


I would like to see those statistics and find out more about those individual gun owners. Were they armed when the home invasion took place (or was the gun in a closet, locked away, under the cushions of the couch, etc). Did they have any training? What type of training and how recent was it?
Further, you simply said that the statistics show that the incident is less likely to end in violence if the home owner/resident does not brandish a weapon. So, the way that you worded it, that sounds like the statistic that mentions these situations ending in violence includes incidents where the resident shot and killed/injured the home invader as well. Endings such as that, where the only injured/deceased party is the invader are satisfactory endings, in my opinion.

Also, I agree that there are a LOT of gun owners who are clueless both about their own firearm and how/when to use it. Training trumps all when SHTF.


Seems like the solution is to get training.

Improve the ability to protect oneself while reducing accidents.

Agreed 100%. And, while training doesn't 100% prevent any gun accidents, I would argue that it greatly reduces anyone's chances of having a gun accident and greatly improves anyone's chances of responding appropriately to a potential deadly force scenario. Honestly, people do dumb stuff all the time (just check the community forum, people post news stories about this sort of thing all the time). So again, training doesnt guarantee that there will never be any gun accidents, but if people follow the basic safety rules of handling firearms, then there would be almost no accidental gun deaths.

Also, everyone should keep in mind that every scenario is different and situations can be very dynamic. We can play the "what if ____" game all day and people on both sides could validate certain points. For me, after being in law enforcement since 1999, I know what I will be trying to do in a home invasion and it involves protecting my family, myself, and my property by using my mind, training, and my firearm, if necessary. My wife and I have talked-through and walked-through scenarios so that she knows what she should be doing in some of these situations. We have done the same with situations out in public (parking lot, mall, driving down the road, etc). I am armed 24/7, and I dont mean that it is in a lockbox in the next room. I have a firearm on my person at all times (there are obviously a few exceptions, like when I am at my mma gym, for example). But generally speaking, I always have a firearm at the ready.

Both unfortunately AND fortunately, I have seen some pretty sick things and know what people are capable of doing to others, whether their motivation is greed, poverty, hate, addiction, or something else. I had to open my wife's eyes once we were together to some of the same, I feel that she is now better prepared to handle certain situations. I hope that we never have to utilize what we have and what we know, but if something happens that requires it, I certainly hope we execute the appropriate game plan.

For the smart and prepared individual, Training never ends.
 
Last edited:
There was another school shooting. Still think we don't need tigheter security and laws?
 
Home invasions are happening frequently in my hometown. Some of them have ended up as property thefts, some as kidnappings, and some ended in murder. I would argue that the prepared and trained person should give a swift and violent response to this sort of crime.
Where is this town so I can avoid it?
 
There was another school shooting. Still think we don't need tigheter security and laws?

Exactly how would tighter "laws" have stopped this shooting? Or any of the school shootings for that matter.

I agree as far as "security". I'm amazed that a school just a few miles away from Columbine would have that shabby of security.
 
It's not a security issue, it's a societal one.
 
I can agree that it is definitely a societal issue, especially in the "mental instability" part of most of these shootings and the fact that we see mental problems as something to "cover up" rather than to look at it as a disease and treat it like we do cancer.

But, no....there is definitely a security issue in schools as well. A major problem that is a part of this problem that can actually be rectified now. Regulations on glass of outside windows and doors should be put on all new schools being built and we can begin to change this in older schools. Doors should remain locked during school hours, a few things that many schools have already been doing for years. A teacher has actually developed a lock that either goes under the door, or on the handle depending on which is needed that each teacher should have in their rooms. Nothing is coming through that door, unless they just totally shoot a hole through the door to get a hand through to unlock the door or turn the handle....this lock keeps that from happening. Which they of course could do if they wanted to make it big enough to crawl through, but the more time it takes to get into rooms, the better chance that police can get there.

None of the above will be 100% security, but I certainly do believe that security must be tightened in all schools and security should be at all schools. NOT rental cops, but do like my school district and 1,000s of others do....Contract with the PD or Sheriff's department to have at least 1 officer on campus per school.

As far as how we look at the mentally ill? That will have to be a total change in societies thinking. That will take longer....
 
Exactly how would tighter "laws" have stopped this shooting? Or any of the school shootings for that matter.
Thank you; that's exactly what I've been saying for years. Criminals don't care about the law, so adding more doesn't solve the problem.
 
There was another school shooting. Still think we don't need tigheter security and laws?

I agree that schools (and many other public/semipublic buildings) need tighter security. But, what would more gun restrictions/laws have done to prevent this (or any) school shooting?

Laws, particularly certain laws, only let those who abide by the law know their limits. Criminals are the ones that routinely break the law for various reasons,and adding more restrictions, laws, and so on, will not prevent or deter criminals from attempting to commit their crimes, unfortunately.
 
The kid bought the gun legally at a local store. That's the thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"