How dangerous is having a gun in your house if you have children?

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Vic
Kindly S T F U :|

Another example of your maturity. Is this how you discuss things or are you being particularily nice for me?

No, immaturity is only quoting a portion of my previous post in order to obscure the argument and make yourself look better.

What you said was that, in less than 100 years, humans had evolved beyond the need for firearms. And what I asked was why you were insulting us with such bullsh!t. Evolution cannot work on a population sample of hundreds of millions or even billions in only 3-4 generations and (unless you're a complete idiot) you should know this. So why have you been insulting us with these obvious lies? Which is why you deserve to be insulted.

Now, is that clear? Or do I need to draw you a picture?

I for one think a picture holds amusing possibilities

 

[Mookow]

Doggone it what do you know we aren't #1 for total crime.

I think if I lived in one of the "top 10" I might worry a bit more about my own crime problem rather than US gun laws.

Aussies... I think its genetic

 

[Zebo]

I keep a .300 win mag, 2 12 ga and an old bolt action 30-30 over fireplace. All unloaded but for 30-30...with 3 boys in the house. But then they have all shot and are tought responsible ownership from day 1. My dad was the same way but with 6 boys and we never killed one another (not that I did'nt think about it). We all understood guns as a tool that should never be pointed at anyone. All my PC friends are shocked but they would surrender thier rights based on uneducated fears like many americans have done "in the name of safety".


Most all ,if not all, of these school shooting children were from childen of anti-gun parents which, among other things, gave these children and insatible appitite for them. In addition to having looser (aka career driven) parents who did'nt spend time with them and playstation was thier baby sitter.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Most all ,if not all, of these school shooting children were from childen of anti-gun parents which, among other things, gave these children and insatible appitite for them. In addition to having looser (aka career driven) parents who did'nt spend time with them and playstation was thier baby sitter.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part but I think you're pulling this bit out of your ass.

 

[mugs]

Holy crap will GaretJax ever give up? Guns are inanimate objects. They are harmless in the absence of stupidity and evil. There will always be evil, so there will always be a need for guns. There will always be stupidity, so there will always be stupid gun accidents that make people think guns are a bad thing. Guns are not bad. Stupidity is bad.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Zebo
Most all ,if not all, of these school shooting children were from childen of anti-gun parents which, among other things, gave these children and insatible appitite for them. In addition to having looser (aka career driven) parents who did'nt spend time with them and playstation was thier baby sitter.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part but I think you're pulling this bit out of your ass.

You need to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I read the columbine children were coddled little brats on ever med known to man and had very anti-gun parents.. same with kris krinkle or whatever that kids name was.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Zebo
Most all ,if not all, of these school shooting children were from childen of anti-gun parents which, among other things, gave these children and insatible appitite for them. In addition to having looser (aka career driven) parents who did'nt spend time with them and playstation was thier baby sitter.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part but I think you're pulling this bit out of your ass.

You need to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I read the columbine children were coddled little brats on ever med known to man and had very anti-gun parents.. same with kris krinkle or whatever that kids name was.

Are you a psychologist? Have you spent time interviewing the parents and children? Are you sure that the anti-gun stance of the parents gave them an "insatiable appitite" (sic) for them? Who's jumping to conclusions?

 

[MooseKnuckle]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: CPA
Garet, can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that there is not a need. ever.

Not really. Not one of the arguments in favor of having guns has ever convinced me that they are needed.

Anyone who thinks that the American people could stand up to the government is kidding themselves. American forces kill opposing forces at a rate of 1 to 20. Against untrained civilians (American or not, armed or not), the kill ratio would be astronomical.

When someone breaks into your house, they know what they want. If they want to steal some things, then they will take what they want and leave. If they have more serious things planned, then having a gun isn't going to make much of a difference. Burglars will shoot first and ask questions second. A home owner will not since they have their family and friends to think about.

In reply to your post, I hope the burglar is a good shot, because I'm shooting back. If that were to happen, I can guarantee there will be atleast one dead in my house.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Try going from one city to another with a wife, a daughter, two dogs and all the clothes, food, toys, etc... without an SUV. Then you will see a need for one.

Not really. The justice system is based on this logic. Innocent until proven guilty. You and I just happen to have a different baseline assumption.

No one should ever ever have two dogs, there is no need for more than one and even that is questionable.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
I am done. As is typical America, there are too many outspoken, egocentric people in this thread. You guys can keep your guns and all the negativity that goes with them.

Remember fewer rights does not always result in a lower quality of life.

You sound like you just watched "Bowling for Columbine" and are repeating its script verbatim....please original arguments only unless you chose to cite your source.

 

[abracadabra1]

It depends...how curious are your kids?

 

[Amused]

WHY do people keep digging this thread up???

 

[Gaard]

The only firearm I've ever shot was a shotgun. I've never owned a handgun, nor have I ever shot one. Not because I'm afraid to own one or fire one, I simply have no desire to do either. I don't feel like I need to learn to fire one or need to own one.

 

[caddlad]

These "children" are included in anti-gun youth death statistics.

"In 1998,according to the FBI?s Uniform Crime Reports,
for those offenders where an age is known,
individuals 18 years of age were arrested more
frequently than persons of any other age for
murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault. Individuals 19 years of age were the
next most likely to be arrested for murder, rape,
and aggravated assault, and individuals 20
years of age were ranked third for murder and
aggravated assault. Individuals ages 18 to 20
accounted for 30 percent of all persons arrested
for murder, 14 percent for forcible rape, 22
percent for robbery, and 12 percent for aggravated
assault."

These are thugs. Criminals. Not children.
ALL new gun control legislation is nothing more than an admission
by politicians and law enforcment that they have failed to do
thier job.
Commit a crime with a gun? Go to FEDERAL prison. End of story.
See crime? See gun crime plummet. Enforce existing laws.

Neocon? Not me. Just a rural hunter, democrat, veteran who is tired of hearing .......

Remember fewer rights does not always result in a lower quality of life.

\stumbles for beer shaking head

 

[pennylane]

If you get it be sure to lock it up well.

I have a cousin (that I didn't know very well) that died from getting ahold of it. It wasn't locked up very well so he got a hold of it somewhat easily (he was a mid-teen at the time)

 

[tcsenter]

Anyone who thinks that the American people could stand up to the government is kidding themselves. American forces kill opposing forces at a rate of 1 to 20. Against untrained civilians (American or not, armed or not), the kill ratio would be astronomical.

That ratio was even worse at Lexington, when no more than 100 militia confronted no fewer than 200 British troops. Eight militiamen were killed, only a few minor injuries on the British side (including Major Pitcairn's horse). Well I guess that means the Colonists should have rolled-over right then and there, because resistance was obviously futile against such a vastly superior military force.

The objective is to have a means of armed resistance. That some speculate this resistance may or may not eventually prove effective in the grand scheme of things - no matter how well-considered - is irrelevant. The idea of the poorly-trained and equipped Continental Army having any hope of defeating the world's greatest military power was patently absurd to some in 1776.

Many in the Continental Army questioned whether the British would be defeated in the end, but having to live a long life with one's dignity and self-respect gravely injured by rolling over belly-up just to save one's skin was a worse fate than premature death. I'm sure you would have been among those advising acquiescence because resistance was a risky proposition. One might even get hurt; surely nothing can be worth that!

The overriding goal is deterrence. Academic discussions speculating to the outcomes of armed civilian resistance against a superior professional military force are great and all, with many documented successes and failures throughout the course of written history to serve as instruction, but the 'big picture' is to substantially 'shift' the cost/benefit relationship to better favor resistance and less favor a government who may develop ambitions of gaining a monopoly on the means of force and using that monopoly to nefarious ends.

Even where it would be reasonable to conclude a particular case of armed civilian resistance was an unmitigated failure, it may actually serve a greater cause. Few would dispute that the Branch Davidians were on the losing-end of their armed confrontation with the government. And so the Davidians lost their battle, but a lot of other things happened as well.

Four BATF officers were killed and at least 16 others wounded. For some, it was the loss of government agents and the clear failure of the initial raid that warranted an inquiry. For others, it was the shocking loss of so many women and children in the fire that warranted an inquiry. Whomever you sympathized with, this armed confrontation placed the government's conduct under serious scrutiny.

Despite significant short-comings in the government's conduct being revealed in the inquiry, such as why the government did not heed the advice of its own experts and the use of a chemical agent on children that is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, in addition to evidence that the BATF was materially less than forth-coming bordering on deception, these concerns were swept under the rug in the "official" investigation clearing the government of any wrong-doing. However, it was all for public consumption, and many remain critical of the government's actions, including people who find the warped beliefs of David Koresh and his activities worthy of disdain.

The government didn't come away so 'clean' in its handling of the Ruby Ridge incident. Again, an armed confrontation that resulted in the deaths of a US Marshal, a 14 year-old boy, and his unarmed mother lead to the government's conduct coming under serious scrutiny.

Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were acquitted of criminal charges relating to their role in the armed confrontation. The government settled the Weaver family's lawsuit for $3.1 million. A federal judge issued a scathing decision criticizing the government's handling of the matter, implying the entire case against Randy Weaver was a witch hunt bordering on entrapment.

All of this, not because Weaver was a criminal the government believed worthy of putting behind bars, but because it wanted to turn Weaver into a government informant.

The government cannot afford too many of these kinds of incidents, because the more frequent they are, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss them either as 'isolated incidents' that are not evidence of a more sinister problem within the government, or by demonizing the victims, making it easier to ignore the government's abuses because the victims 'deserved what they got'.

These things keep the government honest because being put under the microscope is exactly how patterns of abuses indicating a more sinister problem within the government are discovered. The government may be able to deflect some criticism by hiding behind the unpopular beliefs of the Davidians and Weaver, but not everyone believes it has become OK for the government to kill Americans because their beliefs are unpopular.