Why do liberals hate guns? II

Exactly... Here are some examples of some more people with no situational awareness:
[video=youtube;r0GfQPjJ1WM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0GfQPjJ1WM[/video]

 

If you THINK that people screwing up on a massive scale involving firearms will not be addressed by the people/government in the future... then I strongly believe you underestimate human nature.

How far into the future that may be is unknown... but I can surely envision the same going down.

 

Ok, fair enough, my thoughts are quite similar I'm just on the other side of the rotten fence.
That said are you a strictly 3rd party voter? Non voter? Or vote for the dem because they're ideologically similar just clueless?
BTW there are only right answers for yourself. Not lookin to cut ya up, just curious.

 

Non voter as none of the candidates represent me. Matters little anyway as Idaho always goes Republican during national elections.

 

In Massachusetts....someone breaks into your home you can shoot them DEAD....legally.

None of this cowering in your own home or going to the furthest point in the house.

Because of this we don't get many home invasions especially where I live.

AboveAlpha

 

Great. You get to kill people. I'm happy for you.
The whole meaning of what I posted is that this would begin to change the public perception of firearms.
I read a story about a guy who was in his reloading room one evening. He heard the front door of his trailer open, and someone walked past his loading room and into the bathroom. Our guy picked up a pistol, and went to investigate. There was a guy plopped down on the throne, who looked very surprised to see our man. The intruder asked "what are you doing here, with a gun?"
It turned out that the intruder was drunk, and thought that he had walked home to his own trailer. No instant death required here.
My post is about educating people about making a home invasion plan, and handling the situation responsibly but effectively. In my scenario, the man has the situation under control, but he hasn't even fired a shot. In the event that he did get hit, the wife still has the family covered. If the man has to retreat back to the safe room, his pass word gets him inside.
Isn't this a lot like some of your JOBS, where you try to keep from killing anyone, while making it clear that the option is on the table?

 

You are not getting what I am trying to get across.

The REASON why we have so little Home Break In's is because Massachusetts laws specifically do not place the Homeowner in a compromised position right off the bat.

In states with those idiotic laws where a family in their OWN HOME must run away from those breaking in and go to the furthest part of the home and if they fire and kill or harm a criminal THE HOMEOWNER ends up in court getting sued and goes to prison because they shot someone in their own home who had a weapon or not but was stealing and perhaps even attempting to rape a mother or daughter.


In Massachusetts.....Criminals simply understand that since on average most people in Mass. own multiple weapons and where I live where we have deer, moose, bear, mountain lion, turkey...you NAME IT...everyone owns a shotgun and rifles and handguns and bows.

Kids are given a Weapons Safety Course given by the Police and Fire and Fish and Game Depts along with the NRA and we have NEVER had a Child die due to a Firearm accident.

What you are describing is just a way for more people to die.

AboveAlpha

 

Just to add no responsible Gun Owner is going to just shoot at an unarmed man even if be is accidentally in the house drunk.

We don't just kill people to kill them and if someone came at me with a knife I would simply put a bullet in their thigh...no femoral artery through and through no bone.

If some criminal attempted to point a weapon at me I would quickly put a .45 round right through their skull.

AboveAlpha

 

You have a Castle doctrine. That's fine, and judgement extends from there. What I propose is pretty common curriculum in home defense training. How in Gods' name is it "going to get more people killed" if the family has a pre-arranged plan to get everyone into a safe location, covered by Mom with her shotgun, and Dad with his AR or side arm, while Mom gets the cops rolling? That beats having everyone all over the house, with the kids either being killed or taken hostage. Dad knows where everyone is, so he knows where NOT to shoot.
We're all duly impressed that you have a better life, better place to live, a better brain and are basically an overall better person than we mere mortals who inhabit the rest of the planet.
Please pull your head out of your better orifice far enough to understand what I'm driving at here, with the powers that be trying to form a BETTER public opinion of guns, and their place in society.

 

I was NOT criticizing your prep plan as that is a good thing to have and drills should be performed.

What I was replying to was you first few words those being...Great. You get to kill people.

The FACTS are Criminals simply do not take the RISK of attempting a Home Invasion anywhere NEAR the ratio that criminals attempt home invasions in other states that do not have laws like we do in Massachusetts.

AboveAlpha

 

Notice where I said it creates more problems than it solves.

And in how many cases is that successful? 10% at the very most. In the rest, you are more likely to just aggravate the situation and end up seriously injured or dead when the criminal only came for a little cash.

Do you not agree that not a lot of kids turn to crime because just having a gun in their hands makes it very easy to commit one. If they did not have a gun, they would not be so keen on the idea and would find it hard to carry out any criminal activity successfully.

Can you cite any empirical evidence for that. USA is the most heavily armed society yet has one of the highest crime rates.

 

Yep, a few years ago we were called Blue Dogs, ironically that one of our best members would be gunned down in a Arizona grocery store parking lot.

 

Prove your assertions.

 

So much of this discussion amounts to that tag line of wrestling with a pig, because we keep dragging the discussion round and round in the same filthy pen.
America has guns and high crime. Okay. Do we really need to go back through the statistic comparisons of urban concentration, poverty, ethnic composition, gang prevalence, and a correlation between places that have the most laws having the most crime? Why is this such an attractive place to be stuck? I think it's because the *******s aren't satisfied yet that their whole collective thinking is counter productive. As long as we haven't completely destroyed all of society, we'll stand by our destructive mindset, and continue to exacerbate the condition.
Don't you dare try to move beyond this, because wallowing in the pig sty is where we want to remain.

 

Not resorting to fallacy is a form of wisdom.

 

But the insane repetition of a failed narrative is?

 

Appeals to ignorance of our own laws is worse.

 

You certainly would know.

 

I think it has been addressed, and I believe it was handled the right way by USSC. The only way to change it is to amend the constitution, and I don't see that.

 

Where gun owning, training and frequently used, the success rate is way higher than the failure rate. The answer is preparedness. I guess that was drilled into us as soldiers, but I was raised in a home with preparedness. One does not put himself into a position where he can easily be overcome first. Sometimes maybe, but I haven't walked a dark street for years. At 78 I have better sense than to give the other guy an advantage.

BTW Switzerland has a higher per family gun ownership than the US.

I also do not believe having a gun available leads anyone to be a criminal. Being a criminal comes first.

 

Training, or at least practice, is why criminals are often better shots than police in a gun fight.

 

What gun ownership looks like in America:

 

The citizens may be law abiding, but their kids may be spoiled brats. They grab guns, kill their law abiding parents and go in public places to shoot more people to become discussed and analyzed in TV programs. I have friends among liberals, who have guns and who are hunters, but they vote Democratic and support stricter gun control laws.

 

So your point is?

 

Yes, but I smoke a lot of pot and have high hopes and pipe dreams those of the opposing view will eventually practice abstinence from fallacy for their Cause.