• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guns and Watertown

C

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
I've seen this theme repeatedly today as I've been obsessing over the standoff in Boston:

"I really wish I didn't own this firearm in my home" said no one in #Watertown right now.
Click to expand...

The timing might be a little suspect, but the sentiment is valid.
 
As long as you're inside, they shouldn't see you with it. Sure, it would be a bad idea to run around waving your handgun in the air, but having it for protection against a home invasion by a desperate fugitive might not be a bad idea.
 
GreenMeters said:
Given the choice between having a rottweiler xor having a gun, I'd take a rottie. Then I could get some sleep.
Click to expand...

I'd wager more people are afraid of their children being bitten by a "violent dog" than gun fire. I have never found an apartment that allowed pit bulls or rottweilers, but they all allow guns.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
I've seen this theme repeatedly today as I've been obsessing over the standoff in Boston:

The timing might be a little suspect, but the sentiment is valid.
Click to expand...

The sentiment is valid, but overall is pretty irrelevant to the gun debate. For every person who might successfully protect themselves from this nut with the gun held in their home (to my knowledge that number right now is zero), there are how many people hurt, maimed, or killed by accidental gunfire every year?

The issue here is that big flashy incidents stick in people's minds much more than the daily grind of gun violence.
 
eskimospy said:
The sentiment is valid, but overall is pretty irrelevant to the gun debate. For every person who might successfully protect themselves from this nut with the gun held in their home (to my knowledge that number right now is zero), there are how many people hurt, maimed, or killed by accidental gunfire every year?

The issue here is that big flashy incidents stick in people's minds much more than the daily grind of gun violence.
Click to expand...

606 reported in 2010. Not as high as people would expect. Guns are relatively safe. Most accidents are from people acting unsafe with them.

Edit: that number is for just deaths and does not include injuries.
 
Decided I have better things to do than get into another pointless gun debate.
 
Last edited:
Zorba said:
A police officer was killed with his gun right at his side. I know he was ambushed, but the idea that a gun gives you assured protection is complete BS.

Plus, if you are sitting there on edge, gripping your gun waiting for the bad guy to break down your door and then the police do for some reason, I doubt it'll end well for you.

That said, if I were at home in watertown, I'd probably have my gun nearby, but I wouldn't be scared shitless without it, either.
Click to expand...

Being ambushed by an unknown assailant is different than someone coming into your house for whatever reason. How hard is it to go up to a police officer and ask for directions? Especially, if you are not a known fugitive? Then your brother comes up and shoots him in the back of the head. Now, someone invading your home for shelter, while running around as a known and dangerous fugitive is a much easier to defend situation.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
The timing might be a little suspect, but the sentiment is valid.
Click to expand...
How is the timing suspect? After the glaring incidents of maniacs shooting unarmed innocent people recently we have a situation where people go, hmm...maybe there is something to being able to protect yourself with a gun? Even with the fastest police response possible, which would definitely happen right now, if that nut were to break into your house your best chance at living would be to have a gun.
 
Zorba said:
A police officer was killed with his gun right at his side. I know he was ambushed, but the idea that a gun gives you assured protection is complete BS.

Plus, if you are sitting there on edge, gripping your gun waiting for the bad guy to break down your door and then the police do for some reason, I doubt it'll end well for you.

That said, if I were at home in watertown, I'd probably have my gun nearby, but I wouldn't be scared shitless without it, either.
Click to expand...

It doesn't give you assured protection, it gives you the capability to assure your own; as much as anyone can.

If I was in watertown right now I'd have one of my pistols on my hip. Not shaking and quivering by the door, just having it there if God forbid I needed it.

It seems that a lot of non-gun owners have this impression that all gun owners are paranoid. Sure some paranoid people own guns, but they're a tiny minority of gun owners.
 
Charles Kozierok said:
That's a strawman. It's about odds, not assurances.
Click to expand...

Not a strawman at all, I work with a lot of "gun enthusiast" that talk like having a gun in the area is an assurance of safety. "If I had been in that movie theater, with my gun, things would've been a lot different." etc, I am sorry there are a lot of nutty pro-gun people out there, but that doesn't make my argument a strawman.
 
Last edited:
Zorba said:
Not a strawman at all, I work with a lot of "gun enthusiast" that talk like having a gun in the area is an assurance of safety.
Click to expand...

If used with any proficiency it's an assurance of safety over the most likely "common" threats (muggers and such) and some uncommon ones. But yeah if someone is out to get you, that's a whole different ball game. There's a reason mob bosses don't typically make public appearances, and it's not because they don't have guns.
 
eskimospy said:
The sentiment is valid, but overall is pretty irrelevant to the gun debate. For every person who might successfully protect themselves from this nut with the gun held in their home (to my knowledge that number right now is zero), there are how many people hurt, maimed, or killed by accidental gunfire every year?

The issue here is that big flashy incidents stick in people's minds much more than the daily grind of gun violence.
Click to expand...

We can say that about a whole bunch of things, and many of them kill more people a year then guns.

Do we really need motorcycles? There are how many people hurt, maimed, or killed by motorcycles accidents every year?
 
irishScott said:
You care to explain to me how it's not? I said in the next line that if someone is out to get you that's a different story.
Click to expand...

When else are you going to use a gun except when someone is out to get you? If a mugger puts a gun in your back and demands your wallet, what assurance of safety does your gun offer?
 
Atomic Playboy said:
When else are you going to use a gun except when someone is out to get you? If a mugger puts a gun in your back and demands your wallet, what assurance of safety does your gun offer?
Click to expand...
None...but it gives you a fighting chance if it comes to it...without one all you can do is hope and pray he doesn't kill your ass, it's about options not assurances
 
Zorba said:
Not a strawman at all, I work with a lot of "gun enthusiast" that talk like having a gun in the area is an assurance of safety. "If I had been in that movie theater, with my gun, things would've been a lot different." etc, I am sorry there are a lot of nutty pro-gun people out there, but that doesn't make my argument a strawman.
Click to expand...

If a person in Aurora could defend themselves, then yes, the theater shooting WOULD have been different. "Ambush" though it was, it still transpired over several minutes. More than enough time to defend yourself if armed.

As for Watertown, it's perfectly valid to suggest people armed inside their homes could protect their homes. Assuming the door or window required a moment to break and the effort alerted the resident. With all the shooting and explosions, anyone within a mile would be well aware of a dangerous situation and ensure that they were prepared to act.

What is unknowable is if it'd make any difference last night.

As for the poor cop, his gun did not protect him in this situation. Should all cops be disarmed?
 
Atomic Playboy said:
When else are you going to use a gun except when someone is out to get you? If a mugger puts a gun in your back and demands your wallet, what assurance of safety does your gun offer?
Click to expand...

Well if you're going to armchair circumstances:

If I see the mugger coming when he's 5 ft away or more. Or if I'm in a store while it's being robbed and the robbers go too far. Or if I see someone else being attacked. Or if I catch someone about to break into my car (this one's actually happened when I didn't have a gun, I got lucky that time). Or hell, if I'm in the vicinity of a mass shooting with eyes on the shooter, depending on the situation I might even have a chance of doing something about that.

I could list a million more, and you could list a million where the gun would be worthless. Bottom line is having a gun gives me mucho options I wouldn't have if I was unarmed, and it doesn't hurt or hinder me to carry one. So I carry.
 
I say let the pussies carry all the guns they want. Hide in your hole with a gun in your hand waiting for that terrorist to get you.

I'll be enjoying life and if I'm killed while doing it? So what.
 
I can say that if I lived there now, I'd pull the shotgun out of the safe, load shells in the magazine, and keep the weapon close by until the situation is over. I'd also stay alert and keep my head down if there's police activity in my area.

Absolutely I'd want a firearm, and absolutely will I NOT do something stupid with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top