Picture two houses next to each other. Picture a thief. Its night, the people are inside, maybe asleep. One house owner own a gun, a machinegun, a machette, an axe and two rifles. The other sings kumbaya. Who's he robbing?
hey jerkoff- what do you think you are an internet badass because you can make 3 posts in a row each attacking and badmouthing another member of these boards for voicing their views??? you are probably just a tree- hugging, oprah-watching superliberal pussy anyways- if i saw you in my house i'd bust a cap in your ass punk
As for the firepower in question: Picture this scenario, Im sitting home on a Tuesday night writting my post as I hear a commotion outside my house. I see three vans with muslim extremist attacking my neigborhood (and you know that could easily happen, I live in NY). They decide to run into my house and kill me/keep me hostage. If I have a 9mm I kill one or two. The other twenty will overpowerme finnally. But what if, I had my fully-automatic machine gun with enough rounds to.... well enough rounds to kill three vans full of muslim terrorists. You better believe it. Fire untill I run out of ammo. Maybe if that wont save me from all of them, but I could take out at least 10. Now lets say I had several grenades. I throw a few down the stairs and blow the brains out of the first f*ckr*rs. The rest I take out with my machine gun. And if I had a bazooka, and saw them coming, I could fire straight out of the window taking out the better half. And I am not bringing up an impossible situation. All it takes is 20 muslim f*cks to get together rent 3 vans from Uhaul and come down my street. THAT IS WHY YOU MAY NEED FIREPOWER!!!!!!!!!
To the gun owners who want to own guns to protect their homes. A simple question. If a non-lethal weapon of deterrent were available, the kind that police use...stun guns, bean bag guns, etc., would you surrender your gun for a non-lethal instrument? Pit-Bull owners need not respond..... Happiness is a warm gun Happiness is a warm gun When I hold you in my arms And I feel my finger on your trigger I know no one can do me no harm Because happiness is a warm gun Yes it is.
Optional777, The short answer? NO. Nonlethal weapons are available. They're not popular because they often don't work. Try shooting your tazer at a guy wearing a leather jacket, or shooting your bean-bag gun at some crazed crackhead. It's not just the fact that it won't work, its the fact that you could lose your life. Forget the non lethal stuff for a minute, people like rs7 get killed every year because they try to defend themselves with a tiny gun. They want to be nice and shoot the attacker in the leg, attacker gets pissed, grabs your little gun, blows your head off or cuts your throat. There are some nasty ass people in this world. Don't get me wrong, the anti-gunner's heart is in the right place. They don't want to hurt anybody, and that's good. However, you're naive if you think the attacker is thinking the same thing. Regarding the police, sure, sometimes they will use non lethal force if they can. But they tend to show up with m-16s and sniper rifles too. Snake
If there were a non-lethal weapon, that would stop someone trying to harm you, your person, your family, or your home, would you surrender your gun in exchange for non lethal force? If the issue is stopping an attacker, is the goal to simply stop them, or to perhaps kill them?
Optional777, If you could remove all lethal firearms from the world, including illegal and government firearms(army and police), and guarantee that they could never be reproduced, than perhaps I could live in a world of stun guns. Of course this will never be. This issue is about much more than just stopping attackers. It is about stopping potential future dictatorships and police states. Even if current governments have the most honest intentions, there is no guarantee that future governments will. There will always be that small group that will say "Look what we can do now!". I have never killed anyone and have no desire to do so. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as paranoia if it hadn't occurred so often in the past. You will accomplish nothing by disarming the innocent. "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't" -Benjamin Franklin "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and will never be."-Thomas Jefferson Snake .
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People have been killing people before the gun was even invented. So how can the eradication of guns totally eliminate murders, theft, assault, etc? As far as the use of guns... they can be used to either kill or to protect.
good question... Well in my opinion, I think the public should be allowed to carry automatics. I mean bad guys are going around with automatic assault rifles, and cops are shooting back with a little 9mm. I think some cops today carry automatic assault rifles.. My point is that the bad guys have an unfair advantage. They have access to all sorts of weapons, but we're defending ourselves with little guns. I guess if someone comes in with an AK, I can come back with a shotty. I do think we should be able to own assault rifles again. As far as owning mines, chemical warfare, nukes, etc... I think that's going too far. I don't find the necessity of having those. Maybe there should be a limit. Maybe define the limit by what's necessary to at least defend ourselves? my two cents too. Andy