Would having a gun in your home make ...

Would having a gun in your home make you safer?

Created by American_Infidel on Feb 15, 2013

24 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes, an armed society is a safe society

Yes, its a great deterrent against punk thugs

Yes, its better than being left defenseless

No, because Obama says guns are bad

No, because I might shoot myself in the foot

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#21 Feb 17, 2013
District 1 wrote:
<quoted text>I think the lack of government supported civilian marksmanship programs is contributing to the proliferation of "gun crazies" and eroding the Second Amendment.
Keeping guns out of the hands of people like the Adam Lanza involves requiring participation in marksmanship and gun support groups. Otherwise, people self-train and don't secure weapons the way they should. Lanza had access to his mom's guns, and I'd be willing to bet if she had some outside support in securing during the weeks leading to the shooting at Sandy Hook, she'd, he'd and they'd be alive, and none of us would have heard of Sandy Hook Elementary.
The gun laws being proposed now would not have prevented this tragedy.
Crazy is crazy, Lanza would have snapped, gun training or not. I would be looking into whether or not he was dosed with prescription drugs during his school years for ADD or other liberal-made-up diseases as a substitute for a good old-time ass-beating. I bet his father had nothing to do with his life either.
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#22 Feb 17, 2013
I think you miss the point of having civilian marksmanship programs, and how they might prevent mass shootings.
If Lanza and his mom were members of a program, his strange behavior would have been noticed, and people would have assisted the mom in keeping the guns away from him. In addition, he would have had red flags about being sound enough to obtain a permit to acquire.
The problem with the assault rifle ban is that it will not change the conditions that led to Sandy Hook. Only community outreach will.
Baba Louie

San Leandro, CA

#23 Feb 17, 2013
Too bad, a mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#24 Feb 17, 2013
District 1 wrote:
I think you miss the point of having civilian marksmanship programs, and how they might prevent mass shootings.
If Lanza and his mom were members of a program, his strange behavior would have been noticed, and people would have assisted the mom in keeping the guns away from him. In addition, he would have had red flags about being sound enough to obtain a permit to acquire.
The problem with the assault rifle ban is that it will not change the conditions that led to Sandy Hook. Only community outreach will.
You're right, but I think she was nuts to buy the guns anyways.
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#25 Feb 17, 2013
Well, no doubt.
See, the problem is politicians don't think.
The choices of positions put forward are either an outright ban (liberals), or keep the status quo (conservatives), with no common sense solutions like increasing partnerships with the NRA to create well-regulated civil militia. Rod and gun clubs could very well serve a major role in community safety as they once did.
The problem is that the liberal agenda oversimplifies the issue by demonizing gun ownership (even legal ownership), while the NRA/conservatives promulgate things like the "cold, dead fingers" rhetorical positions.
If you really want to stop mass shootings, set the stage for legal gun owners to police their own, and make education and upholding of the Second Amendment priorities.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#26 Feb 17, 2013
District 1 wrote:
Well, no doubt.
See, the problem is politicians don't think.
The choices of positions put forward are either an outright ban (liberals), or keep the status quo (conservatives), with no common sense solutions like increasing partnerships with the NRA to create well-regulated civil militia. Rod and gun clubs could very well serve a major role in community safety as they once did.
The problem is that the liberal agenda oversimplifies the issue by demonizing gun ownership (even legal ownership), while the NRA/conservatives promulgate things like the "cold, dead fingers" rhetorical positions.
If you really want to stop mass shootings, set the stage for legal gun owners to police their own, and make education and upholding of the Second Amendment priorities.
You mean like it used to be.
Pau

United States

#27 Feb 17, 2013
District 1 wrote:
Well, no doubt.
See, the problem is politicians don't think.
The choices of positions put forward are either an outright ban (liberals), or keep the status quo (conservatives), with no common sense solutions like increasing partnerships with the NRA to create well-regulated civil militia. Rod and gun clubs could very well serve a major role in community safety as they once did.
The problem is that the liberal agenda oversimplifies the issue by demonizing gun ownership (even legal ownership), while the NRA/conservatives promulgate things like the "cold, dead fingers" rhetorical positions.
If you really want to stop mass shootings, set the stage for legal gun owners to police their own, and make education and upholding of the Second Amendment priorities.
What does the "outright ban pertain" to?
Pau

United States

#28 Feb 17, 2013
"Outright ban."
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#29 Feb 17, 2013
Depending on the perspective, bans include outright ban on all private ownership of guns (as in Mexico), banning handguns, or military-style "assault" weapons, or the like, depending on the emotional state of the nation.
One popular view is to only allow hunting guns as safe to own, or, restricting ownership to double or single-shot guns (break barrel, bolt action, or straight pull).
An outright ban is the extreme position, as is the no-holds-barred, literal "no infringement" of the Second Amendment.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/510711/t...

Outright bans do get talked about--they will never happen in our lifetime, but that would please some if there were total prohibitions, and the Second Amendment were repealed.
Pau

United States

#30 Feb 17, 2013
Thanks for the link.
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#31 Feb 17, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text> You mean like it used to be.
Well, no. Better than it used to be. Instead of looking the other way from a policy standpoint, acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms is a valid social element.
Then develop a productive relationship with the NRA, support a national network of well-regulated gun clubs that can serve as the front line against mass shootings.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#32 Feb 18, 2013
The "Outright Ban" is the best-case desire of the anti-gunners. They know it won't happen so year after year they work towards it. I've never heard of any liberal that wants to cease their efforts at some lesser point.
Big Mac Mahu

Honolulu, HI

#33 Feb 18, 2013
[Then develop a productive relationship with the NRA,]

Once did a dude who had a license plate NRA 1 and he was extremely kinky. Good luck boys and i'll see you when you get that urge.
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#34 Feb 18, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
The "Outright Ban" is the best-case desire of the anti-gunners. They know it won't happen so year after year they work towards it. I've never heard of any liberal that wants to cease their efforts at some lesser point.
Yes My point is that taking immovable positions like the outright ban actually contribute to mass shooting in subtle ways by degrading the dialog to focus on unrelated bans that would not have made a difference in the issue at hand.
People don't care about truth. They care about having their beliefs affirmed.
Pau

United States

#35 Feb 18, 2013
The NRA does not want a discussion regarding the controlling of military style guns, large capacity magazines, gun show loopholes and background checks. The Newtown shootings have brought on to Washington, (discussion), to do something about the gun violence. The war on assault rifles is as empty as the war on terror and war on drugs.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#36 Feb 18, 2013
Pau wrote:
The NRA does not want a discussion regarding the controlling of military style guns, large capacity magazines, gun show loopholes and background checks. The Newtown shootings have brought on to Washington,(discussion), to do something about the gun violence. The war on assault rifles is as empty as the war on terror and war on drugs.
OK, what do you propose we "discuss" I don't want to discuss a thing about MY guns with you as it's none of your business. Nor do I want to "discuss" your fear of them. What is left to discuss? They only thing left is you want to legislate them out of my hands.
Pau

United States

#37 Feb 18, 2013
Nobody is proposing legislation to take YOUR guns away.

Lapping up the everyday lunatic talking points is your specialty isn't it Stumpy.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#38 Feb 18, 2013
Pau wrote:
Nobody is proposing legislation to take YOUR guns away.
Lapping up the everyday lunatic talking points is your specialty isn't it Stumpy.
Then what do you libs want to discuss if you're goal isn't to make more laws against gun owners?
District 1

Kailua Kona, HI

#39 Feb 18, 2013
Joe Balls wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, what do you propose we "discuss" I don't want to discuss a thing about MY guns with you as it's none of your business. Nor do I want to "discuss" your fear of them. What is left to discuss? They only thing left is you want to legislate them out of my hands.
I think everyone agrees there are limits to the SA. No one should own WMDs or artillery, and many small arms should also be out of bounds (like full-auto, RPGs, grenades, etc.).
The linchpin and historical purpose of the SA is the avoidance of tyranny in government.
The right to keep and bear arms is an old idea regarded as a "natural right" well before the Founding Fathers drafted our Bill of Rights, and in English Law was the right not to be disarmed by the Crown for fear of tyrannical abuse of the citizenry. Therefore, the SA was not the granting of a new right to have arms by our US Constitution.
With that said, the general population has a right (some say a duty) to own guns that are capable of guaranteeing the government does not become a tyrant against its own people.
This is a tough one for liberals to accept (and ironically, understand, because liberals tend to be college-educated), However, the internal logic and historical record are so very strong the SA cannot be swept away, or even substantively eroded.
It is time for soul searching on both sides of the argument, with gun enthusiasts and anti-gun groups refocusing on the real problem in mass shootings: Mental health. What we lack is support for gun groups to help monitor safety, securing of firearms, publicly run ranges and armories, AND provide oversight of education/training, including spotting mental health concerns among members.
Pau

United States

#40 Feb 18, 2013
I agree.

If the amount of money proposed for law enforcement that will not work were spent on mental health, it would go a lot further in solving the problem of violence in our society.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Waipio Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
add a word/drop a word and 'stuff' 2 min Princess Hey 131
Mr. President, Donald Trump (Aug '15) 37 min But But But 348
Last Post Wins (Apr '11) 14 hr Princess Hey 3,747
Add A Word, Drop, Drop A Word (May '11) 16 hr Princess Hey 100
Why do Filipinos consider themselves as Pacific... (Oct '08) Mon RiccardoFire 503
News If you Like Haiku Stairs, Speak Up (Sep '14) Mon FreeTheStairs 30
Yuk yuk yuk yuk (Apr '15) Sun Flock of Mynahs 50

Waipio Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Waipio Mortgages