There's absolutely no reason for anyone to own a gun for self-defense...

[tpfkaw]

You just have to wait 35 minutes for the police to arrive while you have an intruder inside of your house.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/13833729/woman-waits-35-minutes-on-911-while-intruder-breaks-in

[Oakvale]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99417.105

[Frink]

A gun is clearly the only way to stop an intruder while in your house.

/sarcastic strawman response to strawman

[tpfkaw]

A gun is clearly the only way to stop an intruder while in your house.

/sarcastic strawman response to strawman

You are right.  It's usually better to let yourself be raped and/or murdered while you wait for the "authorities" to arrive.  You should try to enjoy the raping to make the most of it, and being murdered is usually less painful if you don't struggle too much.

/sarcastic accurate response that will no doubt be accused of being a "strawman" by an individual who does not understand the meaning of the term.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Some people have seen too many Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal movies. Just owning a gun isn't going to make you safer unless you get some training about self-defense.

[Sbane]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

[tpfkaw]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

Is that supposed to be your knock-out counterargument?

[tpfkaw]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

Is that supposed to be your knock-out counterargument?

Is that supposed to be your knock-out counter-counterargument?

[Sbane]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

[Frink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point was rather simple, but you never were one for intentionally grasping whats laid out bare before your eyes on this forum; if you don't own a gun you should try to club the intruder over the head or use some alternate means of incapacitation.

Or, alternatively, if you can't incapacitate or subdue the intruder (either due to size or their being armed with a gun) its pretty obvious that you should look to self-preservation through any means necessary, yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A well-equipped person with self-defense training is certainly the best defense against an intruder. Most people, however, either aren't paranoid enough or don't live in the bad part of town and don't bother learning this potentially useful skill. Its worth noting that the vast majority of these people live life without significant life-threatening incident from an attacker and/or intruder..

[opebo]

35 minutes seems pretty quick to me.  Back home where my family lives is like 15 minutes from the cop-pen just driving, not allowing any time for wiping off the donut dust or adjusting the service trousers.

[tpfkaw]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

Oh, but crazy people will.

[Sbane]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

Oh, but crazy people will.

Would someone with the profile of a lone wolf shooter have access to these guns from the criminal underworld? In most cases probably not and they would just execute their craziness with the weapons they have. Don't get me wrong, these people will still cause damage, but perhaps they won't be able to shoot 30 times before someone can do anything about it.

[tpfkaw]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

Oh, but crazy people will.

Would someone with the profile of a lone wolf shooter have access to these guns from the criminal underworld? In most cases probably not and they would just execute their craziness with the weapons they have. Don't get me wrong, these people will still cause damage, but perhaps they won't be able to shoot 30 times before someone can do anything about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

And to think, not only did he do it without anything "high-capacity," it was also in a "gun-free zone."

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

If none of those sorts of guns have any value for personal defense-related uses, then you should support banning them for the police as well.

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

Oh, but crazy people will.

Would someone with the profile of a lone wolf shooter have access to these guns from the criminal underworld? In most cases probably not and they would just execute their craziness with the weapons they have. Don't get me wrong, these people will still cause damage, but perhaps they won't be able to shoot 30 times before someone can do anything about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

And to think, not only did he do it without anything "high-capacity," it was also in a "gun-free zone."

And he was LEGALLY sold the gun due to lax gun laws in Virginia.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

Yes

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

Yes

[Free Palestine]

Well, criminals have access to bazookas and grenades too. Should citizens be allowed to purchase them too?

Yes

Though, I think that there may be a reasonable justification for requiring licensing, which would require a training and safety course or something.

Then again, licensing can be used to confiscate weaponry.  Unlike cars, guns are necessary for the preservation of a free state.

[John Dibble]

No, because criminals will still have access to those guns. Crazy people won't though.

Excuse me, but I'm not following you here - if criminals could access guns, exactly why wouldn't crazy people be able to? Not everyone with mental issues has lost their ability to plan things out. A person who just wanted one or two guns probably wouldn't have that much trouble finding someone who could hook them up. Perhaps just find a drug dealer who has the right contacts or does a bit of gun selling as a side business. Probably not that hard if you're determined enough, and some crazy people can be crazy determined.

[memphis]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.