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.
Dumbest Thing I've read today, via the internet......
- Edited
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
- Edited
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.
Iām just playing your game, eh
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.
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.
- Edited
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.
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 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.
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?
rsvman Seems like it would be elementary, but apparently it is not.
You know what they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
PA-PLAYA Address the real problem.
Can you post that again so I can "like" it again?
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.
candukid Sounds to me like 265 children should have had some firearms safety training.
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.
johnnydoom The bump stock was a loophole around all of that as it was claimed to be marketed for a different purpose.
From what I've read, gun owners must have been in the dark about those things; not quite sure why they were. Stores sold out very quickly after the Vegas shootings.
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!
- Edited
"Illogical rational." Interesting. What's logically rational about justifying having a gun in your home when statistically the odds of being invaded by an intruder are much lower than someone known to the household being shot? Reading your posts you have a lot of irrational fear of being home invaded.
Why don't I read anywhere here from gun rights advocates why civilized countries with less guns / tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths, and countries like ours with more guns and weak gun laws have more gun deaths? Again, I guess we Americans are inherently more violent. 
Isn't it logically rational to conclude that the ever more escalation of gun violence / deaths in this country is directly related to the amount of guns out there and the easy access to them?