[Warlock]

Well yes there are several ways to attempt tp prevent a robbery.

Simply placing an "Alarm sign" in your yard actually deters of common crooks.

Another method, cameras are of course a great means to discourage and record them, but many places sell "dummy cameras" that you merely run a wire to an indoor plug, install a battery for power fail back up....and all it does is light up a "power light". A crook doesn't know, so they move on to a less risky target.

But all this aside, there have been many cases of crooks simply kicking in a door and coming in with a family home. I simply refuse to ever allow the potential for me to be in a situation where I'm sitting hoping to god a crook doesn't harm my wife or kids, and trust me, IF, god forbid, I'm in that situation,.....I will not miss, and I will not be shooting to wound. If I can't reach a pistol, I will use any means I have to put the robber down, permanantly if my family is at risk. Make no mistake, I do not care for one's reasons for breaking into my home and threatening my family in anyway. Someone else's sad life story is meaningless at that point. I've had many a rough time in my life. I've had months where all my money when to rent, gas, and enough left to literally eat 3 packs of Ramen a day. I didn't steal a dime from anyone.

But that's me. The whole issue is what's right for everyone. Well guess what? Noone can make that choice but you. Noone on this board, or on the planet for that matter, can decide that for me. Neither can I decide it for you. The issue is what is my right to decide. Thankfully in the US I still have that right, and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it.

Now keep in mind, I don't walk around town with a firearm. I can't have one at work regardless of any permits I might have. I don't go into areas of town (except for work) where I may feel the need to protect myself. I live in a fairly decent area, however as the saying goes, **** can happen anywhere, anytime. If you're willingly going into a dangerous area for reasons other than your job, it's your own damn fault.

[Scotty]

No, it is false because trained or not, the other guy may be just as trained or just as well armed.

The exact same thing applies to every single facet of any skill.  The fact that you have something that you are effectively trained in for defense does not make it a false sense of security.

It isn't whether or not a gun is useful.  It is whether or not we like having something we can do if a burglar breaks in.  Being able to do something is better than letting him rob us blind.

I agree.

How many times must I say that a gun isn't the only way.

How many times must I say that I have chosen a gun after lengthy deliberation?  You may not agree, but I don't really care .

because I have confidence that I can defend myself if need be

Bah!  False sense of security.  He might be better than you!

I'm 26 and not once have I been in a sitaution where someone tried to pull a gun on me

Well, aren't you just a lucky b******.

I do not care for one's reasons for breaking into my home and threatening my family in anyway.

Exactly.  If a person threatens my or my families safety, they have forfeited there's.  If he threatens me with a gun, I will do more than threaten.

I don't walk around town with a firearm

My parents do.  You would be surprised how many people congratulate you for that.

[Warlock]

My parents do.  You would be surprised how many people congratulate you for that.

Not really, most of my family, ....father, mother, brother, uncles, etc, have Conceal Carry Permits. I honestly haven't gotten one yet simply because it's of little use to me. I do security work (Install/service of access control, CCTV, etc) at several major universities and hospitals in VA which is regulated by Department of Criminal Justice Services. In order to carry during working hours (which for me can happen with a phone call) I not only need a Conceal Carry, but additional registration with DCJS, AND my company would have to have extra insurance on me simply based on my having the paper work allowing a firearm in the course of my job.

Meh, plus I gave up hunting and such due to lack of time, so it's really rather pointless for me to carry unless I'm out looking for a fight    lol

[Scotty]

Who cares if you care? I don't.

Given how you have been belittling my choices and doing everything but actually calling me a coward, I would have sworn you did.

For a Christian, you sure place a lot of value on your life.

Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I can't place value on my life.  I choose not to unduly hasten my journey to the Lord.  Being scared is a biological response to external stimuli.  If my being perceives my body in mortal danger, it is natural to be scared.  None of which answers what I was saying to you.  You keep trying to tell me that the burglar may be better than I am at wielding a gun, but I was just telling you that he may be just as good or better than you are at your chosen method of defense.

Or maybe I never go to bars or dangerous places or look for a fight, like you seem to want to do, I guess.

   I'm 16.  I can't drink.  I generally try not to look for fights, they hurt.  Whatever you seem to think I am, I'm most probably not.  I have, however, been put in the unenviable position of being forced to defend my self.

How touching and poetic. Also, what makes you think you can hurt anyone? Talk is cheap. Talking like that does not scare me and probably no one else. If a person has a lot to lose, they should be more thankful instead of talking big, but I see people who have huge families and lots of friends but they are so used to it that they are not thankful and can't handle any loneliness. That ticks me off. I'm not saying you; I'm saying people in general. It weakens people emotionally to have too much and be too used to it.

You know, people generally don't respond to you in a kind manner if you continually insult them about their choices.  What I get from this is that "So you can talk.  Talk is cheap.  I'm not afraid of you.  Piss off."

Besides, you don't know me, and probably never actually will.  I live with my dad and one younger sibling.  My mom lives in Florida with my Step-dad.  I fail to see why you even brought up that last point.

[General Battuta]

As a Christian, if someone shoots you, shouldn't you turn the uninjured side and let you shoot him again?

Or somesuch?

[Scotty]

It is irresponsible to the rest of the community to allow him to escape and do the same again.     Hooray loopholes!

[General Battuta]

You could at least try to make him use up as much ammo as possible first.

You're sixteen? Mature for sixteen. My compliments.

Did you know political orientation is strongly heritable in males, i.e. it has a very significant genetic component? But it doesn't assert itself until past age 20.

[Janos]

oh hey first we have a 16 year old list of american conservative talking points and now we are discussing whether giving pretty much everyone a chance to kill anyone is a good idea or not

[BengalTiger]

Where was your table for Florida where everything else stayed the same but guns permits weren't given out?

OK, I'll look for something when I'll have the time.

But: where are the stats proving that a massive immigration of old people lowered the crime rate in FL and the US?

So far the theory of more guns = less crime has not been debunked in a scientific manner.

I could have a long range taser or non-lethal rubber bullets if needed (which I won't call a true gun). See? So many other ways to neutralize the threat that are effective without a bloody mess in my house, the guilt of taking a life, or the risk of getting put away forever. A win win situation. That negates the need of having a gun that kills.

Some of the post did make some sense, but:

Tasers are good when the enemy has no numerical advantage, since you can't tase 2 people with one Taser at one time.

Unless: *click*

No, it is false because trained or not, the other guy may be just as trained or just as well armed. And the chances of him shooting at you go up drasticly if you yourself are holding a gun. In other words, you're giving him a reason to shoot, since you are a possible threat. A burglar is highly unlikey to shoot you if you're not a threat.

And while I'm sure you feel all badass with your big gun, all the feeling of badasness won't save you from a bullet in the head. Especially if there's two or more of them. (burglars that is - but it works for bullets too)

I can guarantee that an intruder won't shoot you if he/she/it is already shot, or surrenders, or runs away... But do you have any proof for your statement? Any stats on how many armed homeowners get shot vs unarmed?

Isn't social security... Giving money to the poor... very christian?

Social Security is giving money to the government, last time I checked.

And giving money to the poor is Christian, and I happen to do it sometimes.

Body armor has a nasty tendency to not work very well when struck with multiple high power bullets, say... 5.56 mm?  Those are legally acquired here.  As well as a very nice stock Mosin Nagant Russian infantry rifle.

A Mosin for CQB??? Like isn't that a rather large and slow shooting gun?

Dude, buy an M4 or smaller for home defense. Even if you don't penetrate the body armor, you still have a good chance of breaking the guy's ribs (and will to fight) at such a small distance, even with a 9 mm pistol.

[karajorma]

But: where are the stats proving that a massive immigration of old people lowered the crime rate in FL and the US?

Re-read my answer. I said that was a possible alternative explanation for Florida. I didn't attempt to confirm it in any way. Since you're claiming that you have data to support your argument it's up to you to prove that the data actually says what you claim it does. It doesn't of course because you have far too many variables and you're ignoring everything apart from an increase in carry permits.

So far the theory of more guns = less crime has not been debunked in a scientific manner.

True. But I wasn't trying to debunk it. I was pointing out severe flaws in your methodology. It's possible you are right about the effects of gun permits in Florida (I doubt it, but it is possible) but your data was basically worthless and I pointed out why. I do not need to find data to prove or disprove whether the influx of people into the state had more of an effect than gun permits. I simply need to point out that it is a factor you need to consider before you can claim that the only variable of any importance was the pervasiveness of concealed carry permits.

As I said before, if you want to argue with me based on a common sense approach to the discussion then that's fine. But if you are going to drag in statistics I'm going to question your methodology, sampling, controls (or lack thereof) and whether the conclusions you have drawn match the data you have presented. In this case they most certainly did not.

[redsniper]

Body armor has a nasty tendency to not work very well when struck with multiple high power bullets, say... 5.56 mm?  Those are legally acquired here.  As well as a very nice stock Mosin Nagant Russian infantry rifle.

A bullet's "power" () is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.

Secondly, I really hope you aren't implying that Nagants take 5.56 x 45, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Finally, a rifle firing any kind of serious military-grade cartridge could easily shoot through your house and your neighbor's house and hit God knows what.

[Uchuujinsan]

A bullet's "power" () is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.

It's determined by the length of the gun, amount of powder, and the result on the target is determined by the impulse and energy, while the relationship of impulse and energy is determined by mass (and influenced by the diameter)
According to my military training, 5,56 mm is weak against armored, and strong against unarmored targets.

[Warlock]

But a direct and close shot will go right throough average body armor. Again though it's a combination of things that affect the penetrating power of a bullet. In thoery you could have a very small calibur round, if made out of a high density metal, fired through a long enough barrel with the proper rifling using a high amount of powder, and pierce the side of most light armored carriers.

Course we're talking some serious 2020+ stuff ....in theory

[Scotty]

I really hope you aren't implying that Nagants take 5.56 x 45

Heck no, that's why I say "as well as."  Nagants are 7.62 x 54 mm.

As for the CQB part, bayonets do more than just look cool .  You are, however correct.  I would use my dad's M1911 .45.

You're sixteen? Mature for sixteen. My compliments.

Thank you.  And, I'm American.  Double points!

Did you know political orientation is strongly heritable in males, *snip* But it doesn't assert itself until past age 20.

Yay!  I'm abnormal!  My dad's an old army major, and I get a lot of my political orientation from him.  Maybe the fact that my mom doesn't live here changes it a little.  

giving pretty much everyone a chance to kill anyone is a good idea or not

God already gave everyone that.  Your hands, as High Max points out () can be more useful than the average person thinks.

Social Security is giving money to the government, last time I checked.

Social Security is the government providing a monthly (?) welfare check to American citizens over 65.

Tasers are good when the enemy has no numerical advantage, since you can't tase 2 people with one Taser at one time.

Unless: *click*

It only looks like a "slug."  Slugs are useful only against one person, unless you get lucky.  Buckshot tasers just seem impractical.

A bullet's "power" () is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.

Yeah, but bigger bullets make bigger holes, bigger holes hurt more, hurting more makes the guy less likely to shoot back.  Using the transitive property, therefore bigger bullets = guy less likely to shoot back.

Besides, have you ever heard one of those guns go off?  Those things are LOUD!

But a direct and close shot will go right throough average body armor.

Indeed.

Powder is ancient tech. I hear they are developing mass drivers, laser tech, and electric guns that use electro-magnetism, but I doubt it will become the size required to be in hand held form for quite some time. It's time for a change, same with the ancient combustion engine that uses ancient fossil fuel (that is why planes and vehicles are noisy). What are we doing still using powder and fossil fuel when it has been used for over 100 years? Anything over 100 years is technically considered ancient. It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder. That is an 1800's method. Actually, physical projectiles (bullets) are an ancient method too. I hope it all gets fased out sooner more than later.

Umm, first of all, it's phase/nitpick.  Secondly, just because something is "ancient" doesn't mean it needs to be replaced.  For example, let's take a loot at pulleys.  Pulleys are on of the five simple machines, and have been around, literally, since man learned how to tie a not around a branch.  How often do you see pulleys still?  Quite a few places.  They use them in cranes, elevators, and other lifting devices.  Do you propose we phase those out too?
What about the wheel?

It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder

.

Why?  Is it sad we still use the wheel?  Age of discovery is unimportant, age of update or renovation is.  Guns are improved and modified all the time to keep them cutting edge.

[Warlock]

Powder is ancient tech. I hear they are developing mass drivers, laser tech, and electric guns that use electro-magnetism, but I doubt it will become the size required to be in hand held form for quite some time. It's time for a change, same with the ancient combustion engine that uses ancient fossil fuel (that is why planes and vehicles are noisy). What are we doing still using powder and fossil fuel when it has been used for over 100 years? Anything over 100 years is technically considered ancient. It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder. That is an 1800's method. Actually, physical projectiles (bullets) are an ancient method too. I hope it all gets fased out sooner more than later.

For that matter why are you using a computer ? It's been 73 years since it was invented!!!!

I love ppl like this.

Gun Powder's ancient. Yet very effective.

Combustion engine's ancient. Yet still effective for it's purpose.

Yes they have flaws, yes ppl are working on other means. No nothing truely effective across the board has been created up to the proper scale to be widely distributed.

Wait. Do you still use fire? That's seriously ancient.

[Warlock]

I included fire as a joke I see you missed that.

Yes all those alternate engines are great, for an experimental development in progress. Hydrogen and Nuclear have a long way to go before it'll drive your car AND it'll be allowed due to safety issues. Imagine a two cars at 55+ mph impacting each other with either of those systems.

Solar and electric are still being worked on to remove flaws, but both aren't far away.

See the whole point here yet? You refer to current tech as ancient when there is no true replacement for that tech currently available in the quantity needed.

There's many new ideas being tested for a great many things, as there always have been. There's a reason some things stay around for decades though.

[Charismatic]

A third one? That link is getting old.

EDIT: Lofl, they redirected all links to that vid. The individual users didnt. Lofl, That is a good one. They should have picked a less harmless song to poisen everyones eyes and ears with tho...

[Liberator]

Like I wouldn't reply to this....

Ok, here are some examples of why gun ownership is a good thing.*NOTE* These are likely to be subjective.

Most people that I have run into that are licensed for open or concealed carry, particularly the open carry, are some of the most in-control, balanced individuals I have ever had the pleasure to running into.  They tend to be soft spoken, but never unassertive, or "weak".

Something I have noticed historically in the last 45 years or so, from watching old news and historical recordings, is that as "family" gun ownership and the culture of gun ownership has been attacked and beaten back like supposed rabid dog, gun related crime has gone up.  Teaching a young person to responsibly hold and maintain a pistol or rifle teaches them to be confident and respectful in general.  Going further back, despite popularization to the contrary, the "Wild West" was rather more civilized than what it is portrayed as.  Gun ownership was and is an essential right, both for protection and survival.

Over all I think gun ownership is a positive thing.

Something to bear in mind about guns.  If you make them illegal and take them away from citizens, the criminals who use such weapons will find a way to get them.  Murderers will still kill people, just with knives or axes or ball bats, or they're bare hands.

Guns are like any other tool, albeit one which is designed for a particular purpose.  The potential for harm lies not in the tool, but in the heart and mind of the wielder.

One thing that I think should happen is this, remove the growing stigma from gun ownership.  Replace it with public awareness that gun owners are taking a responsibility onto themselves to handle and maintain they're weapons with public safety foremost in they're minds.  Require basic maintenance and handling courses be taken BEFORE a license is issued.

In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.

I mean really, if I'm gonna rob a bank at gun point, am I gonna go charging in as readily as when several, many or all the persons in the bank could be packing heat?

[Mars]

Guns and the like will be around as long as they're practical. Until some type of body armor is developed that is immune to anything bullet-like, it's still gonna be the most cost-effective way of killing things for a very long time.

[General Battuta]

Has gun crime actually increased (more than we'd expect due to a growing population)? I'm not sure of that...