Guns, what good are they....?

Originally posted by Badge01
Again, BETTER alternatives are:
1. If you are living in a high(er) crime area - move;
2. Get a good security system and have your home burglar proofed by an expert consultant; install exterior lighting, etc.;
3. Get a dog (maybe even two);
4. Install a safe room and the ability to barracade yourself in the bedroom with a gun-resistant wall. (Few burglars carry guns, but fewer still will shoot through a wall).

I hope you are kidding, because all of the above doesn't make a lot of sense with exception of item (2).

1. It's damn hard to move, financially and otherwise, plus as is evident in my area, even "good" neighborhoods can be targeted even for daytime intrusion
3. I am allergic to dogs and besides I was bit once, so I don't like myself and my kods being around one.
4. Sure, we all have resources to build a bunker into an existing house. What crock. Besides, we are all olympic athletes and can retreat into the bunker, with kids an all, in a few milliseconds while the door is still being kicked in. Jesus...

The real deterrent is the knowledge that people have guns, in this area of town. When the thug knows that he can get a hollowpoint between the eyes he will tend to reconsider. Coupled with an effective electronic alarm, this can do miracles.

reply to post by Badge01

Don't be silly.

Excuse me?

And nope... it's as simple as get a gun and feel safe at home. For me.

Over and out.

youtube.com...

See people kill people not guns

Who said I needed a gun to kill a person? You must not have very much Faith in me do you?

double post error/bump, but seriously what makes you think abolishing guns will solve your problem.

Study history and you will find your answer.

[edit on 29/1/08 by Obsurion]

IMHO, guns should only be used by law enforcers, security guards, bodyguards and the army, and not civilians.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Look at what people do who live in places where there is a real possibility of home invasions and burglaries.

Brazil is one. They have gated complexes, armored vehicles, guard dogs and safe rooms.

That tells me that in some ways people who live in normal areas who get guns for home defense purposes may be, in some ways, living out a fantasy.

If you're allergic to dogs, then get a recording of a vicious dog.

But I have to ask why you're jumping over the intent of my post? It's not to demonize guns or promote illogical methods. It's to offer a more in-depth discussion of home protection.

I'd also suggest that people who are really interested in the 'fire arm method' of home security get shotguns and not handguns. But where's the glamor in that?

As far as getting people into safe rooms - yes it takes practice and frequent drilling. Thanks for helping me illustrate that detail. It's another essential aspect of home defense, similar to a fire drill.

Simply getting a gun and putting it in the nightstand is an overly simplistic analysis if you need serious home self-defense. The majority of people go their whole lives and never have a need for them.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by andre18


If people dying is your worry then how about taking away alcohol. More people die each year from drunk driving than were killed in the whole vietnam war.

Originally posted by Badge01
But I have to ask why you're jumping over the intent of my post? It's not to demonize guns or promote illogical methods. It's to offer a more in-depth discussion of home protection.

I can agree with that. My point was, I suppose, that guns still have a firm place in realm of home defense, imho (I admit I'm not an expert, but this makes me even less likely to start building a bunker etc).

I'd also suggest that people who are really interested in the 'fire arm method' of home security get shotguns and not handguns. But where's the glamor in that?

If I have a handgun, I can also use it for target practice and frankly it's a lot easier to wield and use in confined spaces such as inside a house. It requires a smaller safe box for storage. But either will be good.

Simply getting a gun and putting it in the nightstand is an overly simplistic analysis if you need serious home self-defense. The majority of people go their whole lives and never have a need for them.

You are right. At the same time, my father told me how once when he was a little boy, burglars approached their house and tried to get entry, even though they knew there were occupants inside; my grandma made them believe that she had a loaded shotgun (it was a ruse, and she wasn't even talking to them directly) and they simply left. Had she not done it, there was a good chance that she and my dad would both be dead.

It was either in the late 1980's or early 1990's, but there was a televised interview with Mickeal Gorbechov(I apologize if the name is spelled wrong) in that he was ask, why did'nt Russia ever invade the United States and Mr. Gorbechov stated that there were millions of Americans with guns.

Gun's can be a big deterant. I am a gun owner, and I believe in responsible gun use. I love to hunt, and my family benefits from that. As long as I do not break the law I feel, that I have a right to own my guns, but if I break the law, then my gun's should be taken away.

Originally posted by andre18
They kill people, they are designed for the soul purpose to kill….and so why do so many people enjoy owning something that has the potential to kill whether it’s someone or something. Gun loving Americans and all…..I don’t think I need to go over the figures of gun related deaths in America…..but like…..what’s going on…..

My Government owns guns, and Government with the power to give everything has the power to take everything, As a free man, the founders of my country saw it fit to ensure that The People have a means to protect themselves not only from criminal minded citizens but also the potential usurpations and injustices of a corrupt and overbearing Government, when voting no longer works, when our voices are no longer heard, and when finally Government decides the vocal throne in their side that is The People standing up to its injustices decides to come and silence them, we have a last line of defense a last option that most countries don't allow there citizens to have, every Citizen capable is Militia, and therefor responsible for protecting his rights ensured by the Constitution of the United States.

What is it with people and wanting guns…?

Is it to defend your home….?

To defend yourselves….?

On a personal level, I collect military style weapons, I love to shoot it is a hobby that imho every person should be able to indulge.

I carry a Glock 19 everywhere I go, and its known in my neighborhood that own guns, I live in the city, Guess who's the ONLY house on the block never to be robbed or broken into?

So..…is there some kind of scare in America where everyone’s in a panic…right outside your door is the enemy..? That everyone is out to get you…I mean…. this is ridiculous…..

Whats with the rest of the world? are you so afraid of your fellow man that you cannot trust he will abide by moral principles and law, therefor you must ban something to ensure your own fears never come to pass?

you tell me who lives in a world of fear?

Or is this something to do with 9/11……

Can I get some help here…………………………

Originally posted by amitheone
IMHO, guns should only be used by law enforcers,

The same LEO that shows up 10 min after your dead?

security guards,

The same security guards who saved the day at Virginia Tech?

bodyguards

The same body guards only the wealthy can afford? Its nice to ones life is determined by the money they wield..

and the army, and not civilians.

The same army who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, of which contains the Second Amendment?

[edit on 29-1-2008 by C0le]

Just to point the obvious, the US is by no means unique in having leeway with guns laws. I've seen (many!) solders in Switzerland coming home for the weekend in full gear and with nice looking automatic assault rifles. Now, it's serious firepower and it makes all talk about Glocks etc moot. Guns can have a place in a civilized society.

Thinking of which, cigarettes probably kill more people in the US than all guns combined.

Originally posted by redseal
You know what even with their signs clearly stating NO GUNS, their still are armed bank robberies!!! Wierd huh?? Youd think with the sign and everything...

hehe which reminds me...




[edit on 29-1-2008 by C0le]

Ok......from what I've read so far....people don't really have any problem owning guns because there are other more dangerous things in society like criminals and such who would benefit from a gun ban.....and even in Australia certain crimes have gone up, but I think there’s something people are missing……

Because of the gun ban…..there are still less crimes happening in Australia, then there would have been were guns still legalised….. even if crime still happens….the fact of the matter is, crime is still down because of the gun ban…..

Can anyone show me statistics of the crime rate of Australia before the gun ban was imposed, to what it is now…..if banning guns was a bad idea……according to you people, there should be more crime happening because of the gun ban…..so show me the statistics…..

I've moved around the country with my job and like living in an area where gun ownership is high much more than the obverse. Most people tend to not do anything drastic when they know there may be a serious and immediate downside to doing so.

I own guns and don't hunt anymore but still like to go shooting quite a bit. It's just like going golfing or playing a few games of pool. -good clean fun

Originally posted by andre18
Can anyone show me statistics of the crime rate of Australia before the gun ban was imposed, to what it is now…..if banning guns was a bad idea……according to you people, there should be more crime happening because of the gun ban…..so show me the statistics…..

Looking at a pro-handgun ban site, it appears that the statistics support banning them. For every 100,000 deaths in the US, it appears we are 4/100,000 whereas Japan is .02/100,000.

Gun control stats worldwide

I still think it's a good idea to have an armed society and I think it's worth the risk. After all 4/100,000 is not a big risk.

We just need more education and better handgun and gun training. A lot of those numbers are for things like accidental shootings and suicides.

However, having said that, it might be that in the future we find a way to protect everyone...say a personal forcefield or something similar. That way interpersonal aggression wouldn't be an issue.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Badge01]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by T.Smith
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Wow, well that was narrow minded.
So you dont like people "preaching" as you put it to others about what to do and your right to bear arms, yet you seem to know a heel of a lot about the way the european union works and how they should act when dealing with a VERY complicated situation such as yugoslavia.
So by your rational the E.U should have marched straight in shooting round at anything they suspected to be a threat, sound familiar....yeh irag aint working out to well either is it.
In no way am i saying you dont have the right to bear arms but to flame someone that has simply asked for advice/opinions on their stance on having firearms, and to think you know how to control, and the best options of all european nations in times of conflict. You have to admit thats a bit egotistical

Yes...T.Smith..quite correct. It was very narrow minded. THere are those of us Yanks who are quite narrow minded about our rights. We are not intrested in following the European examples or thinking. Quite correct in your use of the term Narrow Minded.

I am not intrested in how the European Union works if it takes two or more years to get any action completed. Same same thing with the United Nations. THe Europeans knew more than us here in the USA that genocide was going on on all the warring partys. Massive killings of civilian non combatants. They did nothing...nothing but debated and debated and debated.

Europeans went through two major wars in the last century...they obviously didnt learn. It took bailing out by non Europeans to end it.
Do they even teach this in public school or has this history too been hijacked??

And furthermore if you want to take it as a record of history ...Europe has a much longer pedigree in the warring department than does this country. European history is written in the blood of war after war after war.
All thier delicacy over what they label a complicated situation has not solved thier problem as evidenced by what happened in Yugoslavia. All the Europeans together did nothing. Got it??

Now..if I had gotten a more recent education in the public arena I would most likely not know this history and have little point to make here. Europeans would play through by default just like The Walking Fox is attempting to do in this thread using racism from page 1 of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are not Europeans nor Australians here. We are Yanks and proud of it . We have no intrest in following the European example of intelligentsia or enlightment.

If you want egotistical ...read what the English and French did to the Germans at the Versaille Treaty in 1919. This too is not spoken about today except in certain books. Europe is awash in the blood of egotists.

HOwever ..most Americans today have little knowlege of history compared to the significance of it. Sad but true.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Andre 18,

Im going to make a couple of points here concerening two concepts you have avoided in toto in order to put ointment on your perceptions of what is right and wrong. Moral and immoral.

1. What is the status of the police where you are in thier ability to protect private property?? Do you even have private property in Australia??
Or do they get there after the fact and collect data to support more laws and more police to collect more data??

Remember what I am asking..thier ability to protect private property including your person or anothers person.

Here stateside it is becoming more and more obvious that this is not the primary duty of the constabulary to protect individuals and their private property. It is becoming more and more obvious that they are here to protect the political status...especially in the larger citys. The public comes somewhere downt the line in importance as does the publics...private property.

do you even have private property in Australia??

I ask this because of number 2.

2. The ability to own private property means that the public is the soverign and the government is the subject. Which form of government do you have down under??

Private property means the ability to protect the same.

In America we do not have the Law of the Soverign as is done in England and down under. The Law of the Soverign is one of priveleges granted by the soverign or government. Here we have rights not priveleges. This is an anathema to the "civilized world." They want to bring us in line with the Law of the Soverign...by slight of hand if necessary.
Our charter of Government is quite different in this. Someone here privily wants to ignore the charter and by intelligentsia ..make like the charter of our government never happened or can be reinterpreted to means something quite different from what was intended.

We are not under the Law of the Soverign.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 29-1-2008 by orangetom1999]