Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

streamdragon wrote:Edit: post sounded better in my head for some reason...

Regardless. Am I simply not allowed to think shooting guns is fun?

Thats why you're a pistol packer. If you were a manly man who could break the neck of a muontain lion with your bare hands it wouldn't be an issue girly boy!

Frazzled wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Edit: post sounded better in my head for some reason...

Regardless. Am I simply not allowed to think shooting guns is fun?

Thats why you're a pistol packer. If you were a manly man who could break the neck of a muontain lion with your bare hands it wouldn't be an issue girly boy!

But we don't have mountain lions where I live! Only the occasional black bear wandering down out of the Appalachians...

(although even that is miles and miles to the west of me...)

I hear crossing the Wife/SO is about as dangerous.

Single. :( Dang, I am just plain ole boned then aren't I? I won't get to be a manly man since I'm too busy being afraid and on constant alert!

I'm not sure why people are making the massive mistake in thinking that gun ownership is tied to a fear-based insecurity. Because it's not. Being prepared is not fear induced. It's a cautionary measure, just like being prepared for ANYTHING else is.

As for the US vs UK debate, you want to talk about American's being 'fearful'? What about all your camera's you have on all the streets/buildings/homes? And you call us paranoid/fearful? Really? Not only that they're all government controlled, no thank you. I understand the deterrence it provides, but if the UK was such a 'peaceful' place to live why would you have the need to be watched over by a 'big-brother'?

Not to mention, I'd rather be held up at gun point then knife point. Way more agonizing ways to deal pain with a knife then a gun. Not to mention it's way more personal for someone to cut/stab you then to shoot you. More likely to be mutilated by said person then the one with the gun, that's probably going to shoot once or twice and run instead of covering your mouth and stabbing you a few times in the gut. At least the gun shot alerts others to the fact that someone might've just been shot, where the knife makes almost no noise.

I'd rather be shot than have my throat slit by a box cuter

Don't post things like this on Dakka.

Reds8n

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:I'd rather shoot them than have my throat slit by a box cuter

Corrected your typo.

Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton

And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail

Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion,

Fortunately, modern handguns defeat billhooks.

Fexor wrote: Not only that they're all government controlled, .

err.. No, they're not.

Please watch what you post, especially with regards to "amusing" images, gifs etc etc. we try to keep the boards to around a PG 13 rating so we do not want or allow things that, even if faked, are a tad too graphic.

Ta.

reds8n wrote:

Fexor wrote: Not only that they're all government controlled, .

err.. No, they're not.

Please watch what you post, especially with regards to "amusing" images, gifs etc etc. we try to keep the boards to around a PG 13 rating so we do not want or allow things that, even if faked, are a tad too graphic.

Ta.

Ok, I'll give you the fact that I chalked up "Government funding" as "Government controlled". (Call it paranoia or whatever, but that does seem to be a common trend, a little tit-for-tat if you will.)

However, what image did I post that was too graphic? I'm not asking to be a smart arse, I just didn't think I posted anything borderline offensive. I mean I opened the website at work. >_<
(Or if this isn't applying to me, then I retract the question altogether. I just assumed it was me since I was the one you quoted.)

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton

And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail

Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.

Bob Dole approved this message, didn't he Bob. Woo there.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.

I agree with this, 100%.

...However, that makes it hard to spread the Evangelical Christian beliefs on the naive minded locals of foreign countries. (just kidding)

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Cameras? What cameras? I've never seen a CCTV camera. Isn't CCTV an alternative name for the Soviet Union. England is a safe,peaceful place, rather like hobbiton

And yes, America is in fear. You fear British invasion, John Dillinger, The Mexicans invading, Bob Dole on the campaign trail

Back OT I keep repeating myself: your country, your rules.

I go past two CCTV cameras every time I go for a slash at work.

However they aren't mine, and I didn't install them out of fear. The company put them there.

All the CCTV didn't stop someone pinching a console development kit off a guy's desk last night.

CCTVs are basically a means for transferring taxpayer funds to private companies.

At least with a gun you can have a good bang when you want.

Kilkrazy wrote:
...you can have a good bang when you want.

Ah, a motto to live life by!

Please, please don't start the 'which is deadlier, a knife or a gun' debate.

We all know that Indiana Jones answered that question more than 20 years ago..

Fexor wrote:I'm not sure why people are making the massive mistake in thinking that gun ownership is tied to a fear-based insecurity. Because it's not. Being prepared is not fear induced. It's a cautionary measure, just like being prepared for ANYTHING else is

I haven't read the entire thread, but I want to address this (often fallacious) point.

Having a spare tyre in your care is being prepared.

Having spare batteries in the kitchen draw is being prepared.

Knowing CPR is being prepared.

Having a first aid kit is being prepared.

Why are all these (and similar things) considered to 'be prepared'?

Because they take steps to address likely, potential dangers.

Thats the key. Likely, potential, dangers.

Keeping a firearm 'at the ready' to respond to a violent home invasion is fine.

BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers. Such as: Do you also have a defibrilator in the home? Is everyone trained to use it? Do you own a car with a 5 star safety rating? Is it regularly serviced and maintained? Has every member of your family undertaken advanced/defensive driving courses, and do they complete regular updates? Does everyone in your family hold a high level first aid certificate, and do they complete regular refreshers? Do you have your household electronics regularly inspected? Does everyone follow a strict healthy eating diet and exercise regime?

You see, I'm down with guns as home protetction. I really am. But if you haven't significant taken steps to mitigate all the other far more likely causes of death or injury before you decide to get a gun for home protection, then stop kidding yourself. You're not doing it because it's safe to do so, you're doing it so you can feel like you've got a bigger dong.

Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.

They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

streamdragon wrote:Wait... is someone actually arguing that the only reason I own my guns is that I'm "in a constant state of alert"?

No, I said that in response to a specific person.
I am well aware of recreational hunting. Wouldn't mind giving it a go actually.

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.

They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!

I never said anything about martial arts classes.

Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.

Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.

Kaldor wrote:

Fexor wrote:
Keeping a firearm 'at the ready' to respond to a violent home invasion is fine.

BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers. Such as: Do you also have a defibrilator in the home? Is everyone trained to use it? Do you own a car with a 5 star safety rating? Is it regularly serviced and maintained? Has every member of your family undertaken advanced/defensive driving courses, and do they complete regular updates? Does everyone in your family hold a high level first aid certificate, and do they complete regular refreshers? Do you have your household electronics regularly inspected? Does everyone follow a strict healthy eating diet and exercise regime?

You see, I'm down with guns as home protetction. I really am. But if you haven't significant taken steps to mitigate all the other far more likely causes of death or injury before you decide to get a gun for home protection, then stop kidding yourself. You're not doing it because it's safe to do so, you're doing it so you can feel like you've got a bigger dong.

Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion? Because I think we both know that's fallacious at best. First aid? How often do you injure yourself so seriously that real first aid is required, but 911 or a trip to the clinic isn't quick enough? Not to mention that the things you describe are all things you're asking for a good investment of time to get and then keep refreshed. Getting a gun (especially a shotgun which usually has no waiting period) and learning to properly use it and care for it can be done in a single weekend, and doesn't prevent doing the other (useless) things.

I own two guns. A Colt 19A11 .45 semi-automatic handgun, and a Mossberg 12gauge pump action shotgun. The shotgun I have used (or almost used) on two separate occasions to defend my property. I've lived here for about 4 years now. Twice, in 4 years. I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, with almost no crime. I haven't even had a fender bender or ticket in the last 8, have never needed to use my first aid certification in the last 10 years and have literally never heard of having "household electronics inspected" before.

So you can tell me I'm doing it for a "bigger dong", but you're full of crap and you know it.

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.

They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!

I never said anything about martial arts classes.

Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.

I made this point myself a few pages back. I also mentioned saving someone from drowning.
But since literally everyone on dakka can do both these things (gosh what conscientious nerds) my point was, apparently, moot.
I should come up with a list of things that are statistically more likely than a person successfully employing a firearm in defence of life/safety/property.

Joey wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Wait... is someone actually arguing that the only reason I own my guns is that I'm "in a constant state of alert"?

No, I said that in response to a specific person.
I am well aware of recreational hunting. Wouldn't mind giving it a go actually.

I do not hunt at all. Too soft hearted, honestly. I do target shoot with a 45 and have gone skeet shooting with my shotgun though.

streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?

Really?

You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?



Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.

They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!

I never said anything about martial arts classes.

Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.

Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.

My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.

So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.

I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.

Instead, how about first aid?

Got that covered. Even if I didn't, what exactly would prevent me from going out and learning after I purchased a firearm? Or is there truly some requirement for us as individuals to follow someone else`s arbitrary risk management list of to-dos in order, as this is the only true and proper order?

I do not hunt at all.

I can, and have hunted for food or pest control. Can't say i'm a fan of recreational hunting. On that note, something has always really "amused" me in the line of thinking that one owning a gun to defend the lives of themselves and families is NAUGHTY-BAD, but hey...You wanna go out and kill animals for fun? That's alright.

streamdragon wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kaldor wrote:BUT ONLY after you've taken steps to address, to the best of your ability, all MORE LIKELY dangers.

They're more likely by your definition anyway.

Claiming that people have to go take martial arts classes before they can get a gun is nonsensical at best. An utterly inane high standard is the term I would use.

AWOOGAH AWOOGAH! Strawman alert!

I never said anything about martial arts classes.

Instead, how about first aid? How much more likely is death by heart attack than by violent home invasion? I'm not even going to bother looking it up. Heart attack is exponentially more likely. So why buy a gun, and not a defib unit? Buying a gun and spending the relevant time on it (range time, training and practice for the family, etc) is time wasted if you're attempting to prevent danger to your family. It's time spent wasting much more immediate and likely dangers.

Anyone can buy a gun for whatever reason they want, but please, don't try and piss in our pockets about it. If you really believe you got it for home protection, then you're not looking at the facts. Just admit you got it to feel powerful.

My house hold consists of a 31 year old male (myself), a 30 year old female (my sister) and a 56 year old woman (my mother) whose family has NO history of heart attack. None.

So you can tell me heart attack is more likely, but like I said, I've had to pump the shotgun twice to protect my property. Fortunately for me, I'm in a loosely populated area where crime isn't an issue, but animals are. For someone in an area that borders a city or high crime area however... My father's house has been broken into twice. Fortunately for him and us, he wasn't home either time because both time the perps were armed when police caught them.

I know, I know anecdote anecdote lol, lol. But until you bust out numbers, or really anything to back up what you're saying I don't really need more than that.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

But you can prove anything with facts, eh?

Kaldor wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?

Really?

You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?



Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.

No, I want you to show me that the things you've named will do more to mitigate those deaths than a firearm has done to mitigate violent home invasions. Your assertion is that more lives are saved by training regular people in CPR, defensive driving or what have you than by people defending themselves with fire arms. So prove it.

I'm well aware that plenty of people die in car crashes, or by heart attacks. But look up how successful non-EMT CPR is, for instance. It's very low.

Again, I'm not saying that knowing CPR is useless, or that 5 star crash ratings dont exist for a reason (although I do question the efficacy of the tests administered sometimes). I'm simply saying that having a gun in your home is not some power trip. It is a justifiable security measure (among many) that can be used to protect yourself should your safety be compromised.

streamdragon wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Care to back up your "far more likely" assertion?

Really?

You want me to back up the claim that heart disease, road fatalities and accidents and injuries are exponentially more common than than death by violent home invasion?



Justify it however you want. But the danger you're addressing (violent home invasion) is WAY down the list, and I'd bet London to a brick you've done next to nothing to address most of the issues that are above it.

No, I want you to show me that the things you've named will do more to mitigate those deaths than a firearm has done to mitigate violent home invasions. Your assertion is that more lives are saved by training regular people in CPR, defensive driving or what have you than by people defending themselves with fire arms. So prove it.

I'm well aware that plenty of people die in car crashes, or by heart attacks. But look up how successful non-EMT CPR is, for instance. It's very low.

Again, I'm not saying that knowing CPR is useless, or that 5 star crash ratings dont exist for a reason (although I do question the efficacy of the tests administered sometimes). I'm simply saying that having a gun in your home is not some power trip. It is a justifiable security measure (among many) that can be used to protect yourself should your safety be compromised.

This is untrue, see above source.
Knowing CPR does not decrease the likihood of saving someone's life in the event of a heart attack.
Having a gun DOES increase your liklihood of being killed.

Branas's study found that people (In a pool in which half were selected from police reports of shooting victims. I'm sure that won't skew the numbers or anything though.) who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens(In Philadelphia). When the team looked at shootings (In Philadelphia) in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.(In Philadelphia)

Statistics are like lightposts. They are intended to be used for illumination, not as a convenient place to lean for support.