Printable View
http://eatliver.com/img/2009/4936.jpg
Edit: Sorry about that. Here's a link.
I had some doubts about the wisdom of posting this sign, but after some reflection, if the neighbor truly believes that all guns should be banned then he should not be so upset with the sign. He wants all of us to be defenseless too. The only real issue is whether it is smart to advertise the fact you own firearms. What do you think? :cool:
I think they don't approve of hotlinking. :( I wanted to see it.
Just cut & paste the URLQuote:
Originally Posted by Niclo Iste
I read a statistic (can't find the linky) that convicted criminals have cancelled 40% of the plans on robbing/attacking because they believed the victim might be armed...Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Squid
Well, we've never made it a secret that we own and use firearms. Especially if they come around on a weekend that we are going to the range and we're loading the weapons into the van. The neighbors haven't complained, or critisized. But then again, we do live in Oklahoma, where private firearm ownership is a Gawd-given Right! :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeBee
Consequently, the best time to go to the range is Sunday morning, cause most of the good folks are in church and the range is empty. :cool:
Up in this part of Texas, it's really hard to find a household that doesn't have guns. Even when I lived in hippy dippy Austin it was fairly rare to find someone who didn't own firearms. And even before concealed carry was legal, it wasn't all that unusual for folks to carry handguns. When I worked over on the East Side, it was generally believed that, if worst came to worst, some time locked in a cell was better than eternity locked in a box underground.
When I lived in Alexandria, VA and spent a lot of time in D.C., businessmen in the Northeast and Southeast areas of the District were some of the most heavily armed people I've ever encountered; handgun ban or no.
I carry just about every day. I pray that I never have to use it, as know it will end up costing me a years' salary or more in legal fees defending myself against a muggers widow, but as stated above in Slgrieb's post, "time locked in a cell was better than eternity locked in a box underground."
As for the original question, would you rather have a sign saying this is a gun protected home, or this is a gun free home???
"Gun Protected" signs would be OK by me, but I think there's way too much rhetoric about how "they" want to take away our guns. And, maybe that sign is a little over the top.
I'm depressed about the lack of civil, intelligent debate in American politics. I'm sure there actually are plenty of folks who think no one should have guns, but that's a delusion. Hey! There are a lot of people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster!
I'm pretty much toward the Lefty-Pinko end of the political spectrum, but I still can't see how anyone could endorse forfeiting their right to defend themselves and their families. Gun control advocates often go overboard, but some gun rights advocates can be as irrational.
Just because I think an adult should be able to watch porn, doesn't mean I think child pornography should be legal. Just because I think most adults should be able to buy guns doesn't mean that I think that they should be sold at 7-11s.
I would rather be judged by 12, than be carried by 6...
The 2nd Amendment states " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The word Arms encompasses a whole lot more than just guns, so why aren't people clamoring for the right to carry RPGs, grenades or mount a 50cal to the F150? Why stop at just a small subset of guns, since other types of guns are regulated by law?
In some states, buying a gun is almost as simple as purchasing it from 7-11, where you can walk out in 15 minutes with a brand new gun. While in others you can wait 3 months for the privilege to purchase one. Even Walmart sells ammo in their stores in parts of the country.
While people state that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" guns make it that much easier. Here's a graph to show how guns are the preferred method to kill people. The blue and green lines are both for guns, it is just that one line is just handguns, and the green line is for other guns.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...weapon.svg.png
It just seems that an item whose sole use is to kill other living things should be more regulated whether for defense or aggression.
Fascinating chart, Kymera. Where did you find it? If it were more current, it would show a continued decline in gun crime.
I suggest you look up Kennesaw, Georgia, a city with mandatory gun ownership laws. Violent crime, break ins, etc. are way below the national average, and declined sharply after the enactment of their gun ownership requirements. In fact, it was just selected as one of the Top 10 cities for families.
There are tons of related statistics, disproving the old myths that increased gun ownership is directly related to increased violence, or murder, etc. I'm at work and can't dredge it all up at the moment, but you might give it a shot and see for yourself.
I did not intend to imply that gun ownership results in increased violence, or murder, etc. My only point is that guns are made to kill things. Whether you use it for defense or aggression that's what a gun does, that is what it is made to do. While gun homicides have fallen (all homicides by weapon type also fell) guns are still far and away the greatest killer of other life. As such, they should be regulated.
I also wish the graph data was more current, though 5-6 years old is still on the cusp of usability, and it can be found on this page.
A single town where mandatory gun ownership has resulted in lower that average rates for violent crime is interesting. However, on January 12, 2010, Jesse James Warren, in Kennesaw, Ga., fired multiple rounds from two handguns, killing two people, and critically wounded three others. He is currently awaiting trial. I am honestly surprised that in a place with mandatory gun ownership, that he lived long enough to be taken into custody, and without first having to be taken to the hospital.
I point you to this chart, to see that the US ranks above countries that most would consider dangerous. Also, notice where the US falls in relation to other countries that are considered our peers. I believe the US has the most liberal gun policy amongst our peers.
I'm still curious about my the question in my first post: why is no one arguing that the Constitution states that people have the right to bear Arms. Arms include a whole gamut of weaponry, not just guns. Why isn't anyone complaining that the government took away the right of all citizens to wield grenades, shoulder launched rockets, chain fed machine guns or mortars? What is the problem with those weapons as opposed to guns?
Actually, there are plenty of folk opposed to any kind of weapons control. Knowing a few of them well is one reason I favor gun control. And, of course, that's the rub. I'm no more if favor of banning ownership of weapons than I am of removing all restrictions; the debate is about what constitutes reasonable limits.
So, Kymera, you raise lots of interesting questions, but what's your position on the issue?
:flames: Bwa ha ha! I'm back in!
Kymera, I speak from the vantage point of having been born and raised in country with severe gun control: Venezuela. The citizens were unable to fight crime, or oppose totalitarian governments, and were basically victims. The murder rate in Caracas, and other cities, is very high, even without guns, because people will find a weapon. In the heat of the moment, a knife, or even a sharp pencil, is just as deadly and convenient.
My relatives in Venezuela, live in fear for their lives and will not venture out after dark, as the streets are owned by the criminal element, who has nothing to fear from the citizenry, or the under-trained, ill-equipped and mostly uneducated police forces. In fact, one almost is more afraid of the cops than the criminals.
When I was growing up, we were protected, as my father had a highly illegal .38 cal. automatic pistol he smuggled in from the USA, which was our only line of defense against criminals. He never had to use it, but we felt safer having it as an option.
Yes, handguns are designed to kill people. Responsible gun owners are acutely aware of this. I have taken all of my boys to the range and taught them proper gun safety. My wife, two of the boys and myself all own and keep at least one firearm, and are prepared to use them in our defense. My wife, all 4'10'' of her, is the most adamant proponent of firearm ownership of all of us, having been the victim of violence throughout her life and refuses to be a victim any more. :thumbs:
Interestingly enough, the one boy who doesn't own a firearm is currently in the Army. He is awaiting deployment to Korea, but is bucking for Iran or Afghanistan. I guess he wants to be a combat nerd, as he is in Communications and is the one kid who took to hardware and computer modding/construction. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Machineguns, fully automatic weapons, etc. are not beyond private ownership, actually. You just need to have the money for the licenses. I know a feller with a .50 cal. machinegun, he just needs to get a license for each and every round (bullet), which ain't cheap. But, as the owner of a strip club, he can afford it. And, the various fully automatic weapons he also owns. Explosive munitions are more restricted, I would assume, but am not familiar with that.
Don't you hate it when someone sits down next to you at the bar, flirts a bit, then leaves without even saying goodbye?