Skieur's Why Do Americans Have Guns Thread

[Destin]

2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.

How, exactly, do you have any ef'n clue what 2 "apparently" un-armed guys "have in mind" when they break into your home?

Really?

Thanks for the laugh. :thumbup:

Exactly. Someone breaks into my house while I'm there, and they will have a gun in their face quicker than they can blink. I won't pull the trigger unless they give me a reason to, but I will pull it if need be. The cops can throw me in jail and press charges all they want, I'm going to protect my family no matter what the consequences are.

 

[usayit]

2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.

How, exactly, do you have any ef'n clue what 2 "apparently" un-armed guys "have in mind" when they break into your home?

Really?

Thanks for the laugh. :thumbup:

yeh... the response is a joke.

seriously judge.... I threatened their life but I wasnt serious....



I guess the 23 dead at Lubys also didjt think the gunman way serious either.


I guess I could also keep posting more links to similar incidents but each will be doubted through hindsight eyes


useless discussion with useless logic and baseless statements... cheers got better things to do...

 

[Rekd]

2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.

How, exactly, do you have any ef'n clue what 2 "apparently" un-armed guys "have in mind" when they break into your home?

Really?

Thanks for the laugh. :thumbup:

yeh... the response is a joke.

seriously judge.... I threatened their life but I wasnt serious....



I guess the 23 dead at Lubys also didjt think the gunman way serious either.


I guess I could also keep posting more links to similar incidents but each will be doubted through hindsight eyes


useless discussion with useless logic and baseless statements... cheers got better things to do...

:thumbup:

I WILL BE THE JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER IN MY HOUSE WHEN MY FAMILY'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. PERIOD.

If you're not invited in, you risk being shot. Deal with it.

Thank you. :mrgreen:

 

[usayit]

lol...

Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?

 

[Rekd]

lol...

Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?

No, but banning Happy Meals reduces fat kids...

 

[usayit]

lol...

Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?

No, but banning Happy Meals reduces fat kids...

And regulating stupidity and legislation of common sense makes everyone smarter.. lol

In the news today.....
NYC lawmaker announced his push to ban texting and walking... wtf?

 

[Rekd]

lol...

Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?

No, but banning Happy Meals reduces fat kids...

And regulating stupidity and legislation of common sense makes everyone smarter.. lol

In the news today.....
NYC lawmaker announced his push to ban texting and walking... wtf?

I saw that. I nearly fell over. :er:

 

[Trever1t]

LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...

I think that is something that a lot of people don't really understand. Do you want to know why? Why the founders of this nation thought it important to guarantee that right to us?

Here's why...

If our government ever evolves into something that we, the people, do not wish - it is our duty as citizens of the United States to overthrow said government and establish a new one. Without an armed population, I don't know if that would be possible.

Hopefully, that never happens. Hopefully, there will be a peaceful way to 'fix things'. That is not always the case though. Like the NRA likes to say - it ain't about duck hunting.

lol, I said that 47 posts ago....

 

[Rekd]

LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...

I think that is something that a lot of people don't really understand. Do you want to know why? Why the founders of this nation thought it important to guarantee that right to us?

Here's why...

If our government ever evolves into something that we, the people, do not wish - it is our duty as citizens of the United States to overthrow said government and establish a new one. Without an armed population, I don't know if that would be possible.

Hopefully, that never happens. Hopefully, there will be a peaceful way to 'fix things'. That is not always the case though. Like the NRA likes to say - it ain't about duck hunting.

lol, I said that 47 posts ago....

Honestly, it prolly needs sayin' every few posts.

 

[Trever1t]

Yeah, true. :thumbup:

 

[Rekd]

What I don't see mentioned yet is the fact that this country was founded by simple people who rose up against tyranny, the largest most powerful military in the world.

As such our founding Fathers wanted to guarantee that no American ever feel that a government could hold such power over the people, that the people could rise up and reform the government, if need be.

Quoted for posterity. :thumbup:

 

[Trever1t]

Something else I have noted in many conversations of this type is that unless you get an anti-gun person to join you at the range their opinion will not change....take one to the range and they immediately change their opinion.


green eggs and ham. Think about it.

 

[j-dogg]

Something else I have noted in many conversations of this type is that unless you get an anti-gun person to join you at the range their opinion will not change....take one to the range and they immediately change their opinion.


green eggs and ham. Think about it.

I was this guy. Not fanatical about guns but was pretty much like "to each their own" went to the range with my friend he's a cop and I've been hooked since.

 

[chito beach]

Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area.

The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000 with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east

In both Canada and the U.S, the majority of murders have been related to domestic in-family disputes, which the police have usually been able to solve. The second largest group of murders have been drug or gang related. Violent home invasions have been targetted with drugs and/or gang involvement. The victim to use the clichee is often "known to the police".

Despite perceptions, by the way, the crime rate has gone down steadily in both Canada and the US. You have a much higher chance of being hit by ligtening or a car or having a member of your family critically injured in a car accident, than you do of being a victim of random violent crime.

So home protection is an excuse that cannot be justified for carrying a gun. Moreover, the era of the cowboy has long passed. Today, particularly in the US, you can get charged for shooting the bad guy and sued for several million if you critically injured him. On the other hand the bad guy can claim self-defence for killing you, because you brandished a gun at him or were threatening to shoot him. Then of course if you shot someone who turned out not to be carrying a gun, you could be charged with murder.

Too many NO WIN situations can result from carrying a gun for "protection".

skieur

Your statistics are way off! 33% of murders happen within the household.

The Daily, Tuesday, October 26, 2010. Homicide in Canada

14% were killed by a spouse, 19% by another family member, 39% by an acquaintance, 9% by someone known to them through a criminal relationship and 18% by a stranger.



Canadian statistics are totally bogus this is an excerpt from

Statistics Canada
Statistics Canada: Canada's national statistical agency / Statistique Canada : Organisme statistique national du Canada


Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR)



Please give reference for your statistics given here. Any statistics given out by The UCR Survey classifies incidents according to the most serious offence (MSO) occurring in the incident (generally the offence which carries the longest maximum sentence under the Criminal Code of Canada). In categorizing incidents, violent offences always take precedence over non-violent offences. For example, an incident involving both a breaking and entering offence and an assault is counted as an incident of assault.

As a result of the MSO scoring rule, less serious offences are under-counted by the aggregate survey. However, the incident-based survey allows up to four violations per incident, permitting the identification of lesser offences.

Government is lying to you about all the crime statistics in Canada. We really dont have a clue what the real crime rates are.

The survey also does not include many aboriginal peoples in canada as they are not required to report.

The MSO requires that only the primary offense be listed but has space for up to 4 crimes per incident (which are not counted) So if you have a murderer, who raped and sodomized the victims before stealing all their property, by the MSO rule only the murder need be counted. and if multiple murders happen in the same incident it can be counted as one incident.

That is why your crime rate has dropped.

 

[Rekd]

^^^ That's gonna leave a mark.