I guess we just see the world differently. I don't think humans are capable of a system the prevents some of those among us from being power hungry and leading them to do bad things to obtain the power. With that being said, the USA has done a better job at approaching this than any other civilization in history and we continue to do it better (ending slavery, suffarage, etc...).Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac
Guilty as charged. Sorry to harm you.
I've got to step away but I'll check your witty response later.
Thanks all for the discussion.
No witty response needed. You just confirmed the stereotype.
My point being that the chances of a tornado or a fire are very slim, as are an armed gang invasion. You only chose to protect against the latter.
I did some thinking. Muscles, while they can be used for violence and intimidation, can also be used for moving furniture, throwing a ball, or any number of socially desireable uses. Guns can pretty much be used to harm people and things, which is only very rarely socially desireable. So I'm not concerned about muscles likely being used more often in intimidation than defense because defense isn't the only good use of the body.
In China the production manager of the plant that sent over lead in the toothpaste was executed with a bullet to his head. BP's cheapness caused the deaths of many people in the Gulf. They wrote a check and went to their country clubs.
Bringing up what happened in other countries is totally irrelevant.
It took us considerably longer than other western countries to end chattel slavery. And I think it took a uniquely violent means to end it here.
I would argue that religious worldview/justification played a big role in that.
Also, slavery is not abolished in the US without Chriatianity
700,000 dead in the world's largest mass fratricide isn't a ringing endorsement of what the Founders did, that's all I'm saying.
Fair enough. Also with that, follow the money.
Just a question for those that advocate using guns for home safety. You criticize gun accidents saying they were reckless where they put the guns, yet want guns close enough to you that you can get them if you have a surprised break in. How do you have that happen? Any gun safely put away is more than likely not able to be gotten to quickly. How can you keep your gun safe from accidents but close enough to use in quick instances?
Guys, don't forget who's got your back.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/279031?utm..._term=11172260
I can't find the one I'm looking for where Phil Hartman has to defend his house with a mace.
Aren't there fingerprint safes?
^talk about prohibitively expensive
bernbp5 brings up an excellent point. If you have kids, the home invasion scenario that these "responsible" gun owners keep bringing up is problematic in that if you are able to access your weapon quickly enough to use it, it's hard to say it was secured well enough that your kids couldn't.
Last edited by dmcheatw; 12-30-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Even though I'm a gun guy, I saw this George Carlin quote earlier and it made me chuckle:
Here's another group of mutants with missing chromosomes who ought to be thrown screaming from a helicopter. Gun enthusiasts. "Yeah, I'm a gun enthusiast." Oh yeah? Well I'm a blowjob enthusiast. Wanna see me shoot? Cock this and I'll discharge a load for you.
Sorry, resume debate.
Great question. I at first did not have a safe for my handgun, but got one within the past year. It's this one:
http://www.gunvault.com/mvb1000.html
There are some really expensive biometric safes out there, but this one is fast and it's got the fingerprints programmed for my wife, Dad and two or three other people.
I have a shotgun in a closet downstairs, but it's not in any kind of safe and doesn't have a lock on it. However, if I had kids it would absolutely be locked away...
but lets say you had kids, and so you locked both away in your hi-tech safe. do you really think you'd be able to get to them in time in the event of a home invasion (and by the way do you really wanna kill some thieves? I understand that you have to protect you and your fam, but do you want to shoot someone over a flat screen TV and some jewelry?) Seems to me maybe, maybe not. So the only real way to be sure you can protect yourself would be to have it on your person (kids or no). if you did have it on your person then at least the kids can't get it and you can, but do you fellows keep your firearms on you when eating dinner or going to bed? and unless it has a safety or a VERY heavy trigger pull, or you leave the chamber empty, you'd need a proper holster for one as well.
bernbp5 still has a very legit point that nobody in the pro-gun side has yet to respond to. Most people don't have fingerprint safes, or proper holsters. how does average, "responsible," john doe have his firearm accessible enough to use in the event of a break in, but yet secure enough his kids can't find it and shoot themselves?
I would say I responded to it with my own solution. However, for most people, I have no idea how they should or do keep their gun so that they have safe and easy access to it. Some people have it on their person at all times, but I think that's a little much.
And yes, I would absolutely be able to get to it on time in the event of a home invasion of some sort.
What if flash bangs and/or smoke grenades were used?
The only flash bang I know of is the one I use for your mother
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
