Dumbest Thing I've read today, via the internet......

Par4QC · 2017-10-03T21:58:45+00:00

"These people who don't even live in the U.S., the last best hope of man on Earth, think they know what's best for us." But........we know what's best for...

Weirfan

PA-PLAYA

do you think that people want to kill you as much as they do that azz Trump ? i sure hope that's not the case. Our Political leader has significant protection as well, Ive never felt a need to own a gun ever and I visit our biggest cities all the time at night,
all combined Ive spent over a year of my life visiting/ being in the US ( luv your Country and have many good friends there), Ive also never felt unsafe there and Ive walked alone in DT Baltimore, Atlanta, DC, Buffalo been with my family in some interesting areas of Charlotte and Detroit , NYC as well as many several other areas. with all due respect It sounds more like paranoia you speak of versus common sense.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

No, you are ignorant. Which isn't a personal attack... you just don't know, because your experiences don't necessarily represent the mean.

Two blocks from my house, last year... the police raided two apartments. They were Meth Labs. The perps were big-time dealers in this very rural area, who were also found guilty of breaking into several local homes here and stealing personal property.

They also had an arsenal of weapons that were confiscated.

That's not paranoia. That's reality. Two blocks from my house. Rural Northeast Pennsylvania.

The drug problem here, like everywhere else, has forced people to be concerned for their personal safety. And given the 30-minute average reaction time for the police to show up - well.... do you or do you not choose to be vulnerable? If you do - I respect that. But don't hold it against me if I choose otherwise. 🙂

PA-PLAYA

candukid

Do your research. Find out the number of gun-related homicides in gun-free zones comprising LA, NY, Chicago in 2017 to current and compare that to the number of innocent people who are killed (accidentally) because of irresponsible gun ownership. Then get back to me.

And make no mistake - gun ownership should come with enormous responsibility. I'm not suggesting that those instances shouldn't be considered. What I am saying is that an overwhelming majority of legal gun owners in this country are like me... they keep their firearms secure. They went through an extensive background check process. And above all else - they don't leave their firearms out where kids or others can have access to them. And in those instances where these type of accidental tragedies happen - yes - hold the gun owner solely responsible! Put him in front of a judge, afford him his rights, and give him an opportunity to prove why he should never again be allowed to purchase a firearm of any sort!

I've no problem with that whatsoever. Owning a firearm comes with responsibilities!

But keep in mind that the media these days aren't going to paint a rosy picture. They're going to promote their biased agendas. Which is why it is completely foolish to take anything that they "report" remotely accurate.

I trust the media about as much as I trust the fucking meth dealer in downtown Allentown. And guess what - despite numerous run-ins with the law, despite a criminal rap sheet that takes no fewer than 40 pages to detail - you can bet your sweet ass he has a gun in his house.

Yet I shouldn't. LOL...

And although I do appreciate you considering me an exception to the norm, I don't personally feel that I am. 🙂

Weirfan

PA-PLAYA

we have the same here. I live minutes from the largest city in Canada with a general population of close to 7 million. We have all the same issues that you have , have the the Russian,Asian, Italian mafias , every gang under the sun with mob and gang people targeted all the time. there are stories every day of drug busts and guns seized, we have shootings in high crime low income areas daily. we have meth labs, no different than you. this summer A kid up my street was arrested for stealing and dealing coke and meth , 3 cop cars on a Sunday morning on his lawn. A grow op around the corner that I walk the dogs by every day with my son. its all just noise and Nobody feels the need to be armed in self defense and we still have some of the lowest gun deaths in the world. Many do own guns for recreational use but they are locked away as is the ammo. There are home invasions and in almost 100% of the cases nobody is killed , the perps get what they want and leave even if they have guns which in many cases they dont. Now if there were homeowners carrying a loaded weapon that's not likely to be the case..... somebody is probably going to be shot likely on both sides of the equation.... fact remains that you have a far greater chance of choking at dinner than being subject to a home invasion. Add to that that only 1/100 home invasions occur when people are at actually at home and of that tiny percentage only 7% of that 1 percent were the victim of a violent crime , even less were actually killed. I cant be convinced that guns are needed or help in any way. it IS nothing more than paranoia. heck I dont even have a home security system and never have but they are commonly used. I am glad you store your guns properly. Its the law up here, they cannot be outside of the locker only to be transported with mandatory trigger locks and when that is the case they cannot be loaded. its a criminal offense to carry a concealed weapon, many types are outright banned completely and that common sense translates to significantly less guns, less gun deaths which we are happy about and laws that nobody complains about . this all obviously helps and saves many of the gun deaths that rsvman references . almost all of the banned weapons that are used and confiscated in Canada and used in many of the violent crimes are tracked back to coming from the US.

Par4QC

PA-PLAYA My guns are safe... in a safe. My wife and I are the only ones who know the combination lock. Not sure how that creates a situation where it puts my family at more risk.

Might I ask.....if you are asleep and someone busts in your front door......how far are you from the safe?....and how far is the front door from your bed? IF someone should just bust in, they know if you are home or not, and where your bedrooms are(surely they cased the place, and I don't think breakins are that random). They will immediately seek you out, before any robbery, or in an effort to get any cash you may have also. How fast are you?

While an intruder may be armed, their intent is to merely rob you, in most cases. If you should suddenly confront them, armed also, you just endangered your family, I'm thinking.

PA-PLAYA

Par4QC

I've timed it. It takes me 10 seconds to get out of bed, go to my safe, retrieve my .45 Glock and chamber a round. (I do not keep rounds in the chamber).

Anyone who breaks into my house for evil reasons is no longer solely protected under the constitutional rights of the US, and no court in this country would find me guilty of defending myself and my property if a confrontation ensues. And you damn well better believe that I'm not gonna sit on my ass and watch someone jack my 55 inch widescreen without a fight.

And if I die - oh well. But I can guarantee you that the sonofabitch breaking into my house won't ever put another family through that trauma ever again.

puttnfool

Par4QC While an intruder may be armed, their intent is to merely rob you, in most cases. If you should suddenly confront them, armed also, you just endangered your family, I'm thinking.

Par4QC johnnydoom but basically to anyone that argues that criminals with guns aren't really a threat, but that lawful gun owners are somehow a threat.

Again, never said that, either one. Just a 'mind study', if you will.

Oh, you said it. Not word for word, but you definitely said it.

johnnydoom

Really difficult to understand that way of thinking. You are willing to take a chance that someone with a gun who willfully breaks into your house knowing you are in there is only there to take your stuff, but not willing to trust a person who has never committed a felony with a gun because an accident might happen or a person bent on committing suicide might access it?

Also, there are quick access safes these days that one can keep on the bedside table these days if that is a worry.

Par4QC

johnnydoom Really difficult to understand that way of thinking. You are willing to take a chance that someone with a gun who willfully breaks into your house knowing you are in there is only there to take your stuff, but not willing to trust a person who has never committed a felony with a gun?

Was this directed at me?

If so, I said neither. I was asking questions.

Weirfan

johnnydoom

Nobody is saying that, it's just the perceived threat is negligible . Home invasions are rare , home invasions where it's done with somebody at home are extremely rare( 1 percent) . Home invasions with somebody home and where the home invader has a gun are exceedingly rare and it's even rarer that a home invasion with somebody home results in the homeowner being killed. The rationale of needing a gun for such a rare situation makes zero sense . You might as well wrap your whole family up in bubble wrap when they leave the house too. Nobody is saying that legal gun owners should have their guns taken away but the facts are indisputable that homes with guns have significantly more gun deaths. nothing with any reputable research behind it can say that having a gun helps in those situation verus no guns, in fact often the opposite result ( confrontation ) happens. You want and need my 55 inch tv that badly take it I will help you load it in the car. They are $900 , I'll buy another tomorrow. Do random bad things happen, sure everywhere. US is historically steeped in gun culture, that's not going to change nor do I think that is what is wanted. There will always be gun gangs and gun death. Also unfortunately accidental and suicidal deaths with so many guns in close proximity to the home. Perhaps the latter is acceptable.?
For me personally I question those high powered military grade mass killing units and why they are needed and available so easily. How does a guy get 47 legally so easily. If these types of guns were banned some will still find there way in, we have them and they come from places where they are legal but it's much harder to get them and they are much less frequently found and used and it's jail time if caught with one. It does make a big difference

puttnfool

PA-PLAYA and no court in this country would find me guilty of defending myself and my property if a confrontation ensues

Be careful... in NJ you'd got to jail and likely be convicted. You must attempt to run screaming from your home before you are authorized to shoot an intruder. You have to be physically cornered with nowhere to run before you can shoot an intruder. Talk about some bullshit. I'm so glad I left that hell-hole behind. Now, I'm in OK, where you can shoot someone breaking into your neighbors house and not get indicted for it!

johnnydoom

Par4QC

More or less, but basically to anyone that argues that criminals with guns aren't really a threat, but that lawful gun owners are somehow a threat. And not as a personal attack, I'm just relaying that I obviously don't think like you do. I understand the fear that bad people can steal guns if they are available, but that still requires tolerance of allowing that bad guys will steal. I think the focus should be on getting rid of the bad behavior, not accepting it and trying to limit it by reducing access to tools.

Par4QC

johnnydoom but basically to anyone that argues that criminals with guns aren't really a threat, but that lawful gun owners are somehow a threat.

Again, never said that, either one. Just a 'mind study', if you will.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

What would those percentages of home invasions be if the would-be invaders knew that the homeowners had no means of personal protection, beyond a golf club, baseball bat, etc.? Are we to assume that the criminals are likewise merely armed with golf clubs or baseball bats? Prohibition has proven that this logic doesn't hold water.

Stats can be manipulated however one wants to reinforce their opinion.

Known knowns vs unknown unknowns. Which is why stats, often times, are meaningless. Lots of extenuating circumstances that go both ways.

Par4QC

PA-PLAYA if the would-be invaders knew that the homeowners had no means of personal protection, beyond a golf club, baseball bat, etc.?

If the invaders are coming into your house, and know you are there, they do not care what means of protection you might have.

Don't know the stats, but I'd think these types, that come in knowing you are there, will not do it in the middle of the night. They know the high % would be that you are close to any guns you might have. If they catch you watching TV in the living/family room, or eating supper/dinner....gotcha!

Don't get me wrong, guns are just fine by me(except the automatics), it's the thinking of gun owners that intrigue me.

Weirfan

PA-PLAYA

How would a home invader know if a house has a gun or not whether that be here or there? I couldn't tell you what houses in my hood have a gun or not and I've lived on my street 25 years. Similarly, my with friends in the US, most ive visited don't have guns at least I've never seen anything other than one.

JeffTilley

candukid

I’m just playing your game, eh

PA-PLAYA

Par4QC

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Instead of contemplating what law-abiding gun owners think - maybe society would be better off trying to figure out what criminals are thinking.

But gun owners are always the villain in these discussions for some strange reason, not the criminals committing the crimes.

johnnydoom

Perhaps no one is claiming to say that, but it sure is implied in the arguments/questions presented just above my initial entry. My argument against making availability difficult is simply that it doesn't seem to work with other items in the U.S. Banned substances find their way into the U.S. by van loads and large quantities seemingly in a steady stream. Some are caught with large quantities, but many apparently are not judging by the overall size of the drug trade going on. Guns are large, but not significantly enough more than bricks of powder or bales of weed that we could expect much more success if the street price is high enough. If someone with money wants to commit major mayhem, they'll get the materials whether through legal or illegal means. Its not that it was so easy to obtain the guns, it was that in this person's mind, it was easy to justify using them.

Par4QC

johnnydoom A few years ago, a guest at the hotel where I work, left behind a magazine and I was looking thru it. It was about guns/ammo,etc.. Had pics of an AK47, or whatever it was, that iirc is illegal to own, inc. a complete breakdown/diagram. 1/2 of the magazine was dedicated to selling parts for guns. I compared the diagram to the parts that could be ordered and discovered I could actually purchase a complete AK47 to assemble. Costly as hell, thinking total of parts was around $20K or so. Cheap, considering you can't buy them. Still, it was accessible legally.

Par4QC

johnnydoom Its not that it was so easy to obtain the guns, it was that in this person's mind, it was easy to justify using them.

This!!

Many, way too many, shootings right here in my area. Gangs, Mexican and blacks(proven). Drive-bys that have even killed innocent children at backyard parties. Quite possibly all of these shootings/killings were done with illegally owned guns as the ones that are caught all seem to have priors. Where do they get those guns? I should ask, who sells them the guns? And the law should also be asking that question of everyone that is caught. Bad as it sounds, if I were the judge, I'd give leniency to the guy that gives me the name of the seller. I'd give the seller life. Every time. If the law says I can. Death penalty if I could!!

Only 1 time locally have they got the seller. 16 yrs.. Not near enough, but this is from damn judges that put repeat drunk drivers back on the road. Every time.

PA-PLAYA

Weirfan

You just proved my point. An across-the-board ban of firearms would create a situation where the lawful would comply, and the criminals (obviously) would not.

Good luck with that 6-iron! And hopefully you wield yours better than I do mine on the course! lol

Par4QC

PA-PLAYA But gun owners are always the villain in these discussions for some strange reason, not the criminals committing the crimes.

Again, never said that. Nor even think it!

johnnydoom

Par4QC The parts are legal to purchase if they are to be used in semi-automatic form. Not sure of the law, but I think everything except the lower receiver can be legally purchased through normal means. The lower receivers, or AK47 (if the receiver is produced in the U.S.) may only legally be purchased through the same channels as other gun purchases. You can even lawfully make your own lower receiver if used as a semi-automatic. However, the sale or possession of parts that allow fully automatic fire, or the act of altering or producing one to fully automatic fire is illegal. The only full automatics that are legal for citizens at large to own are those produced prior to passage of the firearms owners protection act of 1986, and that requires a special federal stamp, although I don't think it is that expensive. Legal to own fully automatic firearms are tremendously expensive as the supply consists of only those still around since before 1986. The bump stock was a loophole around all of that as it was claimed to be marketed for a different purpose.

Weirfan

PA-PLAYA

Who ,when and where did anybody say there should be an across the board ban on firearms? We don't have up here only that it's prohibited to carry a concealed firearm or any firearm.

The point was invaders cannot tell who or who doesn't own a gun so they dont decide where they break in based on that they decide 99 percent of the time to break in when nobody is home. That's consistent to both our great countries. Our self defense laws in a home break in are different however it seems. We can only use reasonable force to quell the situation. Its much more complicated than that mind you but essentially cannot kill an intruder unless we are at imminent risk of death ourselves. Because the majority of break ins never involve an intruder with a firearm , we can't just shoot or kill somebody for enterring our home unwanted. That would result in charges, quite possibly murder. Break ins happen all the time just like in other places I can't recall a recent situation where the homeowner shot or killed the invader. When it ever does happen it's all over the news as its such a rare an event. break ins are usually kids looking for cash and items to flip quickly. The kid up the street is a good kid, was troubled but a nice kid. He had apparently broken into a few garages and cars. He 's 16 , no weapons and id hate to have seen him shot by an overzealous gun owner. He's now clean and back in school , so far so good. Despite this unique approach we don't have more break ins , Violent home invasions remain exceedingly rare as are gun related deaths in general are some of the lowest in the world. So as a peaceful society by nature we are far from perfect but content and proud with our low gun death rate. It's perhaps why we react with such strong emotion when these senseless and tragic mass shootings happen anywhere or raise an eyebrow to the high number of accidental and suicidal gun deaths per capita and gang related killings versus what we experience.

puttnfool

rsvman So, you think when an intruder comes in with a gun, they're just gonna leave you alone as long as you don't bother them?

« Previous Page Next Page »