Break in my house, you are going to get shot. Home invasion does happen. If people want to nullify that fact, so be it. In my home town this year 7 teens did home invasion at 11 houses in one night. They rifle butted an old man in the face and broke his eye socket. They pistol whipped a girl holding a baby. She fell unconcious to the floor with the baby. If they didn't have guns they would have used clubs and bats. The only way to argue with you peace puppies is to tell stories. 90% of Americans want nothing but the best for everyone, but as long as that 10% is out there- I am going to own as many guns as I want. You are the same ones that want lighter punishment for crimes. You are the ones giving rapists, murderers and thieves the power. Not guns. Until Jesus comes back, we need guns.
If you know a story where a gun was needed, please share it. I am so glad that I am leaving this "progressive" wasteland.
recently someone in the other thread posted an idea that people should sleep next to their keys so that they can set off the car alarm. But how will that rid one more turd from the face of the earth?
Say what you want. If people had this attitude, newspapers would be out of business.
"Turn the other cheek." I'm trying to figure out how guns are all a part of that inspired comment from our Lord.
You look for a battle, you get a battle. You look for peace, you surround yourself with peaceful people. It's not fool-proof, but it's better than sleeping with one eye open next to a gun in place of your loved one.
I'm trying to understand your comment, Dan. Are you saying that when I used a gun to scare off intruders into my home in order to protect my three small children, I was not being Christian-like?
If guns weren't allowed in the UK, would Thomas Hamilton have been able to enter a school building and shoot dead 16 small children and their teacher?
Does owning a gun in the US protect you from some random nutter who chooses to wipe out as many people as are in front of him if he so wishes?
Do you have a law that says that in order to obtain such a deadly weapon you must be declared sane?
Yes for many ordinary people, a gun would protect you and yours, but widespread use of guns also leads to tragedies.
I bet if I do some research on this guy he will have a bad history. before I even look, do you want to make bets?
Ummmm...can't remember exactly...but feel that no he didn't have a history of doing this. He was legally permitted a gun.
Knee-jerk reaction in the UK was a tighening on the laws as to who could have a permit.
You have a point here. I did research this guy. There were huge indications that he was not normal. The sad thing about a guy like this is that he probably killed more people than he could have without a gun. That being said- he could have used bombs like the guys in russia and killed more. I still want my guns and I think there was enough evidence against this guy to strip his gun rights and even register him as a sex offender- which would have kept him out of schools and scouts.
Your questions are good. However, there's one point that may not yet have been mentioned on this thread (I could have missed it).
Namely, if pretty much everybody is packing, no, that doesn't stop a bad (or unbalanced) person from opening fire--but it surely does cut down on the number of people he kills and/or injures before he is in turn mowed down by Pistol Packing People. Call it damage control.
I've not had to terminate anyone so far in this lifetime, and for that I'm grateful. I HAVE used firearms in defense of me and mine, however (and written about it on HP)...and had one experience in 1973 that eventually led me back to "full time armament". I was recently divorced and, on a weekend, driving through a small town around 10 p.m. one night with my 2 small daughters asleep in the car.
In the middle of the town, up against the back of a stock truck, 3 young cowboys were methodically beating the tar out of a 4th young cowboy as I drove past. I did not interfere, did not even slow down, a decision I knew full well might result in the death of cowboy #4. But I wasn't carrying, and attempting to stop the beating would have put my kids at risk. No one had heard of a cell phone yet, and in that area, service probably stinks anyway.
Had I been armed, I believe I'd have at least advised the threesome, "That's enough, boys." But I wasn't, and the lives of my girls came first. Period.
And if they'd also been armed, wouldn't you likely have been shot dead? 3 against 1. And wouldn't the guy they were beating up already have been shot instead?
I do understand the argument that in an already violent society you have to be equipped to be equally violent. But why is it that some societies (e.g. Qatar, the UAE) seem to manage to be perfectly peaceful on the streets, with almost no personal violence? I've lived here for years and the worst I've seen is a badly thrown punch by a drunk in a bar. (He fell over in the attempt and was escorted out). Why is your society so violent that you think personal firearms are the only option?
Don't worry about me. Start thinking about how you are going to feed yourself when it gets worse.
More negative crap about America! Give it a rest and shove your religious hate.
yeah, yeah. see if i'm wrong in 5 or -
All that html got me confused. I was trying to reply to your last point only.
If governments only permitted gun permits to holders who hold a 'sane' certificate, ON TOP of whatever other requirements the holder would need, would Thomas Hamilton, with the history the world knows about now, have been allowed a gun? I think there might have been sufficient doubt on his sanity without him having done something obviously illegal.
I know no-one gets a SANE certificate, but maybe there should be s system put in place in order to get one as a requirement to be a permit-holder of a deadly weapon.
America has seen more than its fair share of deadly shootings. Why not consider this?
I'm sure it could work in a perfect world, but then again a perfect world would need no guns. The problem with that idea is when you don't trust your government. And I know what you may be thinking- but has there ever been one single country that did not fight within? No.
That is why heaven will be so nice.
Guns are no better or no worse than the person using them.
That lady in Oklahoma was glad she had one, or would it have been better he could have beat her to death?
The man in Pasadena who shot and killed the burglurs leaving his neighbors house. It was quite a scene when sharpton and quanel x were removed by the neighbors. Would it have been better they broke into a house of an elderly person and beat or killed them?
If you break into our house you'll be very sad because all of us have guns and we know how to use them, we pratice all the time.
Same here, Sneak. If the two huge dogs don't get 'em, the owners will!
We have an early warning system too! If they continue to come in with the dogs having a fit then they are either dangerous or really stupid and that will cause them to suffer. Habee I'm right there with you!
AND...as a former Ducks Unlimited skeet shooting champ, I KNOW how to use a shotgun!
Theres nothing more serious than a woman with a shotgun!
Hey - let's bring back the days of the Wild West! This nice, peaceful, suburban, life where everyone happily gets their groceries and Christmas wreaths at the local supermarket is just a terrible way of life and reason for leaving this "horrible" America.
Here here! It's not enough to have the right to own a gun, we should have the right to carry that weapon concealed as well! We have that right, the right to protect ourselves and our family, as a god given right, a natural right, and no government, or law has the power to take that right from us! Any law that restricts our right to protect ourselves is an unjust law and it is our DUTY to disobey such a law!
We should also have the right to shoot anyone who doesn't like guns or killing; and we should all drive red pick-up trucks and have shotguns in the back of them and go around screaming, "yeeee hah!!" all day long; and we should raise our children to love killin' and shootin' and to be proud of their disregard for living creatures!
I am by no means a proponent of guns (dangerous for such an emotionally volatile species to have) but last night a lieutenant said something interesting in their favor. "If a populace is armed terrorists will think twice before attacking them." Kinda Red Dawn thing, I guess.
In all seriousness (and in spite of my above posts), I'm not comfortable with the idea of getting rid of people's right to own a gun. Still, there's reasonable, reasoned, concern about losing rights and freedom, and then there's "being in love with guns" and thinking that anyone who isn't a big fan of guns is some kind of horrible person.
There are no good guys with guns. There are only criminals, the paranoid and cops who have lost control of the communities they are supposed to police.
actually, thanks to wild game management that includes the effective use of guns, deer and elk herds in the western states are larger and healthier than they were in the early 1900's.
i doubt that it had little to do with criminals (although there are some criminal hunters), the paranoid, and cops. get real.
'actually, thanks to wild game management that includes the effective use of guns, deer and elk herds in the western states are larger and healthier than they were in the early 1900's. '
So guns are great for elks. That's good. (I won't ask how they managed before guns came along).
Guns are only good for one thing when it comes to people. Death or serious injury.
p.s. the 'get real' thing doesn't work in real life. It's only effective in teen movies.
I can't tell you about the elk, but I can tell you about whitetail deer. The herds here in the Southeast are supported and managed by sportsmen and the money they spend on licenses. We fed a large number of deer yet only harvested an average of two per year. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited create and support wetlands for waterfowl. Where do you think these organizations get most of their funding?
No good guys with guns?? HUH? I have a gun. I'm not a criminal, a cop, a guy, nor am I paranoid. I have used my gun once to protect myself and my children when men were trying to break into my home. Other than that, I've used it to kill rattlesnakes, to shoot skeet and trap, and to kill quail and doves. I've used a rifle to kill deer, squirrels, and rabbits. All the animals were killed legally and were eaten.
One can not discount the deterrence effect of guns. In NY it's extremely difficult to own a gun, yet criminals can get them and there are many occasions where these criminal invade homes pushing in the door tying up the residents pistol whipping them and robbing them.
Now don't you think they might have second thoughts about carrying out such a crime if the possibility of them being killed was present?
Think about it.
How many fewer would have been killed at Virginia Tech if all of those students were carrying a weapon?
How many at Fort Hood would be alive or uninjured if they too had pistols strapped to their sides?
Just the possibility that a potential perpetrator would have to face return fire from multiple directions would surely give pause to one thinking about committing a crime.
Your carrying a sawed off twelve gauge.Your point man.Vision is limited to ten feet.Some one pops out of the jungle.You fire your weapon.There blood and guts splatter on you.It turns out to be a Kid with an AK.A piece of you dies.
Guns are necessary but definitely not great...
Guns are great stress relievers and most owners are good guys, only idiots commit crimes with them under most circumstances.
Still keep my magnum under the bed...you never know when the Beast might show up...
Until all people are decent and don't attack others unprovoked, I'll fight for my right to carry a gun. A gun helps way more than a knife, with a knife, the attacker gets too close; since it's usually a guy and I'm not one, I want the gun. If you steal a woman's right to protect herself, it's like advocating a return to days when women couldn't go anywhere alone.
Okay! Actually, if I were armed and someone tried to attack me, I wouldn't shoot to kill. If the weapon didn't scare him (or her) away, I'd aim for the knees. If I were protecting loved ones, however, I'm really not sure how I'd react. I would like to say I'd just shoot to maim, but I'm afraid the "mother bear" in me might come out under those circumstances.
responsible citizens should own gun and conduct in depth psychological tests first
My dad had a huge collection of guns. We used to go shooting with him all the time. It was fun. He taught us how to be safe, and was very strict about usage, ownership and everything else. I am not anti-gun, for the record. But for me personally, my interests developed in other ways, and I haven't missed the lack of guns.
And, for the record, I think it's the person, not the gun, who is the danger. Protecting one's self is always a right, and it always important. Being paranoid that someone is always out to get you is as irrational and mentally unstable as so many others who buy guns to maim and kill others. Paranoia is not a state of mental well-being any more than an attitude of maiming and killing others.
Guns are not the problem , the problem comes in when the wrong people get a hold of em
One of my old co-workers got robbed at gunpoint.... twice. My point isn't to say that guns aren't good, I believe the opposite. Guns should be allowed everywhere. What we need is GUN CONTROL. Strict punishment for those who do not keep their guns locked up, and allow others (especially kids) to get their hands on their firearms.
Guns are good, gun control is better.
Country with lowest crime in the world is also heavily armed.
I get what you are saying, but I don't like guns regardless. It's just scary they exist, but since they do is more the reason to protect yourself...even if ironically it means getting a gun. Psh, besides, swords and crossbows are just more cool and strategic.
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.
That does not refer to the national gaurd as demonstrated by the Kent State massacre.
by Credence223 months ago
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/ … n-america/I know that we have beaten this gun issue like a dead horse, but that number is startling. That is almost a gun for every man, woman and child in America.Yet,...
by ahorseback3 years ago
Eric Holder seems to think we need an ankle bracelet to even use a gun and be able to stop crime in America ? And yet , he can't even control his ! He, is the one that needs an ankle bracelet !
by Michele Travis5 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out,...
by safiq ali patel2 years ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?
by Mike Russo5 weeks ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The...
by ahorseback2 months ago
"Ban the gun" becomes the slogan most yelled for weeks after the shooting anywhere , Those here at Hubpages , like all other mass media , jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon . Before...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.