U.S. Politics Discussion

[Faster Than Light]

 

When KingRyder talked about hunting, he didn't say anything 'excessive amounts of firearms'. He just wanted a reason to own 'a gun with bullets'

.

 

Surely, anyone on this planet understands the importance of hunting,

 

 

Very backwards animal rights groups

 

I won't argue with the rest of your post. But there are lot of people who don't think hunting should be a thing anymore. Even for deer

 

And to answer your spoilered question, because in American politics, gun control is just a large part of it due to gun culture.

 

[maskedmaniac]

Who in here protects their house with a baseball bat and not a gun?

[Generations]

 

And to answer your spoilered question, because in American politics, gun control is just a large part of it due to gun culture.

 

 

It's retarded tho.

 

Not to be a broken record, but, I understand not wanting further regulation if you don't think it will help anything. BUT...it's really not the kind of thing that needs to pop up in a political discussion every single day. Hell...if there is a piece of gun legislation about to be signed tomorrow...then let's talk about it. But it's every single week without fail around here. In the meantime, there are are pieces of legislation regarding other (WAY more important things) that are being signed each day. I think we should address those...rather than having the same tired-ass arguments about guns, which neither side is ever going to agree on.

Who in here protects their house with a baseball bat and not a gun?

 

Plenty of people, tbh. Probably most people.

 

And in 99% (obvious exaggeration) of the cases, it's all that you really need. Most home-invaders are not carrying guns. Most are either random drunk/high people, or common burglars. It's a good idea to have a gun in your house (if you're on board with that)...but yeah, it's really not some great necessity like it's hyped up to be. Obviously, location is everything. If you live in a place like Chicago or Detroit...then yeah, I'd have a gun. But, again...I want to stress that most people really don't face that kind of risk at all. In fact, I once had a random drunk guy walk into my house from the bar down the street...and I was just like "You need to *censored*ing leave, hombre".

 

Also, let me ask...what's more likely to get you killed in the event that someone breaks into your home with a gun? Calmly doing what they say, or running out guns blazing and getting into a shootout with them? I know there are cases...like rape, where you need to shoot that *censored*er. But if someone wants to steal your shit, stand back and let them. Call the police. You'll probably get that shit back pretty quickly. You run around the corner with a baseball bat or even a knife, the invader probably won't immediately fire at you. You come around the corner and point a gun at them...you're definitely about to get shot out of defense. It's all great in theory that you silently get the drop on them and take them out...but that's really not likely to happen. And if you do kill that guy, then there are going to be court dates for you. It doesn't matter that it's your home and it was self defense. You won't necessarily be charged with anything, but there will be a process.

[TNFNS]

(Florida does some python hunting in the everglades) and helps keep some from overpopulating

Thats wild. Never knew that. *Censored* snakes

[Generations]

^ Actually had a friend who did that for a while...and rat hunting. Florida has huge rats.

 

Florida is a cesspool.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

"You cannot say anymore that the United States is going to pay for the wall," he said. "I am just going to say that we are working it out. Believe it or not, this is the least important thing that we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important talk about."

 

 

"I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day," Trump told Turnbull. "(Russian President Vladimir) Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous."

 

 

Lol...this *censored*ing guy. Yeah, Mexico...you can't say that US is going to pay for the wall...even though that's the only way that wall will ever be built. You can't say that, because it exposes Trump as being full of shit. So...just stop saying it, okay? In the meantime, I'll just go lie to the American people and tell them that we're working it out. They'll believe me because they're stupid. Lolz.

[Bdon]

Funny thing is, despite reading conservative news all the time, I didn't know just how destructive Obama was to some areas in Middle East until I saw Muslim citizens in various affected areas talk about it. But regardless, Obama is still one of the best presidents we've had in the past few decades....

 

I'm not sure what people's definition of politically correct is. People will say immigrants are lazy freeloaders, but they'll also get offended over someone saying cops are murderers or Christians are whackos.

 

But wanting better gun control to save the lives of children isn't related to defending abortion. If the mother doesn't want to have a baby, what's the guarantee she'll treat the baby well? Her decision to get an abortion isn't made lightly, and it's her choice as she is the one who has to carry the fetus and give birth. Whereas with guns, kids either get accidentally shot at or hurt others accidentally.

 

Makes more sense to bring up how "pro-lifers" are against allowing safe asylum to pregnant refugee mothers and refugee babies or more welfare for families with babies.

Really can't see how he's been the best President in years but that's subjective. To the main point. I was making an example of something hypocritical. I really don't see how you missed the point. My examples were fine but are no matter. The point is still there. If you advocate for something like abortion or you're one of those parents that leave your kids in the car on a hot day. Then you don't really have any room to talk about the lives of other people. This wasn't about a woman's right to abort or not. If they want to then that's on them. But I don't really think they have a place to talk about whether or not guns should be allowed in the hands of people because of a chance of violence when they were perfectly fine ending one. Do you catch my drift? It's hypocritical just the same.

 

Lmao, bdon comparing abortion to gun control, I'd say I'm surprised but really I ain't.

smh

 

 

 

And to answer your spoilered question, because in American politics, gun control is just a large part of it due to gun culture.

 

 

It's retarded tho.

 

Not to be a broken record, but, I understand not wanting further regulation if you don't think it will help anything. BUT...it's really not the kind of thing that needs to pop up in a political discussion every single day. Hell...if there is a piece of gun legislation about to be signed tomorrow...then let's talk about it. But it's every single week without fail around here. In the meantime, there are are pieces of legislation regarding other (WAY more important things) that are being signed each day. I think we should address those...rather than having the same tired-ass arguments about guns, which neither side is ever going to agree on.

Who in here protects their house with a baseball bat and not a gun?

 

Plenty of people, tbh. Probably most people.

 

And in 99% (obvious exaggeration) of the cases, it's all that you really need. Most home-invaders are not carrying guns. Most are either random drunk/high people, or common burglars. It's a good idea to have a gun in your house (if you're on board with that)...but yeah, it's really not some great necessity like it's hyped up to be. Obviously, location is everything. If you live in a place like Chicago or Detroit...then yeah, I'd have a gun. But, again...I want to stress that most people really don't face that kind of risk at all. In fact, I once had a random drunk guy walk into my house from the bar down the street...and I was just like "You need to *censored*ing leave, hombre".

 

Also, let me ask...what's more likely to get you killed in the event that someone breaks into your home with a gun? Calmly doing what they say, or running out guns blazing and getting into a shootout with them? I know there are cases...like rape, where you need to shoot that *censored*er. But if someone wants to steal your shit, stand back and let them. Call the police. You'll probably get that shit back pretty quickly. You run around the corner with a baseball bat or even a knife, the invader probably won't immediately fire at you. You come around the corner and point a gun at them...you're definitely about to get shot out of defense. It's all great in theory that you silently get the drop on them and take them out...but that's really not likely to happen. And if you do kill that guy, then there are going to be court dates for you. It doesn't matter that it's your home and it was self defense. You won't necessarily be charged with anything, but there will be a process.

 

First of all. Who the hell is gonna just let someone come in and take their shit? Secondly, you won't get your shit back pretty quickly. Depending on the scenario, you may never get your shit back. Cops don't really have a high percentage rate of returned goods.

 

Thirdly, that running around the corner thing has got to be a gag. lol.

 

And finally. Depending again on scenario and depending on your state laws, if someone is in your house that isn't supposed to be there (as in breaking in or trespassing) and you shoot them it's a perfectly legal and reasonable. If it was your home and in self defense then it does matter, lol. Maybe not in NJ (which I would have to look up) but in a lot of states it is reasonable and within your rights. Look up castle doctrine. Then you'll know a little more about it.

[Generations]

 

First of all. Who the hell is gonna just let someone and let someone take their shit?

 

Thirdly, that running around the corner thing has got to be a gag. lol.

 

And finally. Depending again on scenario and depending on your state laws, if someone is in your house that isn't supposed to be there (as in breaking in or trespassing) and you shoot them it's a perfectly legal and reasonable. If it was your home and in self defense then it does matter, lol. Maybe not in NJ (which I would have to look up) but in a lot of states it is reasonable and within your rights. Look up castle doctrine. Then you'll know a little more about it.

 

 

Someone capable of critical thinking. It's not that important. You don't have to be a tough guy. People are shot daily because they lack critical thinking skills. It's just some material shit. Let it go. Especially if there are people aside from yourself at risk. You're not being a bitch, or a "cuck" by playing it smart during a home invasion.

 

No, the running around a corner thing is not a gag. Most people are really not prepared for a confrontation in their home. Like I said...it's great to have this romanticized plan of getting the drop on the criminal and taking them out all by yourself. 9/10 times, that just isn't reality. If an off duty cop, or a retired marine furtively gathers their weapon and sneaks downstairs to take out the invader...that's one thing. Your average citizen is entirely more likely to *Censored* that up.

 

Lastly, I never said it was illegal to shoot someone in your home. In fact, I said the complete opposite. I said that you probably wouldn't be charged. You did read where I said that, yes? Because I did. But it's not an open and close case. No authority is going to show up and say "Well...you shot him dead, but it was self defense. Looks good to me." There will be a follow-up on that. You will be spending time speaking about what happened. And if the family of the invader sees fit to get involved, then you will be going to court to plead your case. Obviously you will need to prove that you didn't invite this person into your home and murder them. You need to testify that this person broke in, and you shot them out of defense...especially if it ends up being someone who you actually know.

[LEGION]

 

 

First of all. Who the hell is gonna just let someone and let someone take their shit?

 

Thirdly, that running around the corner thing has got to be a gag. lol.

 

And finally. Depending again on scenario and depending on your state laws, if someone is in your house that isn't supposed to be there (as in breaking in or trespassing) and you shoot them it's a perfectly legal and reasonable. If it was your home and in self defense then it does matter, lol. Maybe not in NJ (which I would have to look up) but in a lot of states it is reasonable and within your rights. Look up castle doctrine. Then you'll know a little more about it.

 

 

Someone capable of critical thinking. It's not that important. You don't have to be a tough guy. People are shot daily because they lack critical thinking skills. It's just some material shit. Let it go. Especially if there are people aside from yourself at risk. You're not being a bitch, or a "cuck" by playing it smart during a home invasion.

 

No, the running around a corner thing is not a gag. Most people are really not prepared for a confrontation in their home. Like I said...it's great to have this romanticized plan of getting the drop on the criminal and taking them out all by yourself. 9/10 times, that just isn't reality. If an off duty cop, or a retired marine furtively gathers their weapon and sneaks downstairs to take out the invader...that's one thing. Your average citizen is entirely more likely to *Censored* that up.

 

Lastly, I never said it was illegal to shoot someone in your home. In fact, I said the complete opposite. I said that you probably wouldn't be charged. You did read where I said that, yes? Because I did. But it's not an open and close case. No authority is going to show up and say "Well...you shot him dead, but it was self defense. Looks good to me." There will be a follow-up on that. You will be spending time speaking about what happened. And if the family of the invader sees fit to get involved, then you will be going to court to plead your case. Obviously you will need to prove that you didn't invite this person into your home and murder them. You need to testify that this person broke in, and you shot them out of defense...especially if it ends up being someone who you actually know.

 

Not to mention...You *censored*ing ended another human's life. Unless you're a sociopath that is gonna affect you aswell.

[Generations]

Not to mention...You *censored*ing ended another human's life. Unless you're a sociopath that is gonna affect you aswell.

 

Yeah, definitely this too.

 

In short, people who have firearms for home self-defense are entirely too caught up in the romance of the whole thing than the reality of it, IMO. Hell...half of them probably expect to simply point the gun at the person and scare them off without firing...which, again...can get you shot and killed if the person also has a gun. Or, if there are multiple assailants, and you think you've shot the only one.

 

Truth of the matter is, you shoot at someone...you've engaged them in a life or death situation. Now they're backed against a wall, and will do things they might not have intended to do. If they have a gun, that includes shooting you to death. If you bum rush someone with a baseball bat, for example...you're mostly telling them "you better flee, or you're going to continue to get beaten with a baseball bat". You've given them a choice. They don't absolutely HAVE to shoot you in order to survive. It's an option. Again, I don't really recommend attacking a home invader in any capacity. Would I? Yes...I would grab any number of the bats, clubs, knives, etc that I have in my bedroom, and I would definitely attack them. BUT...it's not the smart thing to do. And I think that having a gun only makes you a target in most cases.

[Bdon]

 

 

First of all. Who the hell is gonna just let someone and let someone take their shit?

 

Thirdly, that running around the corner thing has got to be a gag. lol.

 

And finally. Depending again on scenario and depending on your state laws, if someone is in your house that isn't supposed to be there (as in breaking in or trespassing) and you shoot them it's a perfectly legal and reasonable. If it was your home and in self defense then it does matter, lol. Maybe not in NJ (which I would have to look up) but in a lot of states it is reasonable and within your rights. Look up castle doctrine. Then you'll know a little more about it.

 

 

Someone capable of critical thinking. It's not that important. You don't have to be a tough guy. People are shot daily because they lack critical thinking skills. It's just some material shit. Let it go. Especially if there are people aside from yourself at risk. You're not being a bitch, or a "cuck" by playing it smart during a home invasion.

 

No, the running around a corner thing is not a gag. Most people are really not prepared for a confrontation in their home. Like I said...it's great to have this romanticized plan of getting the drop on the criminal and taking them out all by yourself. 9/10 times, that just isn't reality. If an off duty cop, or a retired marine furtively gathers their weapon and sneaks downstairs to take out the invader...that's one thing. Your average citizen is entirely more likely to *Censored* that up.

 

Lastly, I never said it was illegal to shoot someone in your home. In fact, I said the complete opposite. I said that you probably wouldn't be charged. You did read where I said that, yes? Because I did. But it's not an open and close case. No authority is going to show up and say "Well...you shot him dead, but it was self defense. Looks good to me." There will be a follow-up on that. You will be spending time speaking about what happened. And if the family of the invader sees fit to get involved, then you will be going to court to plead your case. Obviously you will need to prove that you didn't invite this person into your home and murder them. You need to testify that this person broke in, and you shot them out of defense...especially if it ends up being someone who you actually know.

 

What kind of scenario are you talking about? The kind where people in masks show up in the middle of the night and hold you hostage while they rummage through your shit? lol. That's some movie shit. Most burglaries happen when you aren't home. Any time someone breaks in in the middle of the night then the chances of them doing more harm to you are much greater than just wanting to simply take shit. It also depends on the area too. It's much different in the country. Chances are you will hear them break in. This isn't some James Bond shit. It's not critical thinking to just let someone have their way with your home and your shit. It's stupidity. It's about protecting yourself and having enough respect for yourself to not let anyone just do as they please to you. It's not about the material things. It's about not letting some low life piece of shit get away with anything. Take some damn pride in yourself. If they find out you are home then they are more likely to flee. If they face resistance then they are more likely to flee. If they don't flee it would be pretty clear their intentions are far worse. At that point i can't say I would just let them have their way.

 

"Truth of the matter is, you shoot at someone...you've engaged them in a life or death situation. Now they're backed against a wall, and will do things they might not have intended to do. If they have a gun, that includes shooting you to death. If you bum rush someone with a baseball bat, for example...you're mostly telling them "you better flee, or you're going to continue to get beaten with a baseball bat". You've given them a choice. They don't absolutely HAVE to shoot you in order to survive. It's an option. Again, I don't really recommend attacking a home invader in any capacity. Would I? Yes...I would grab any number of the bats, clubs, knives, etc that I have in my bedroom, and I would definitely attack them. BUT...it's not the smart thing to do. And I think that having a gun only makes you a target in most cases."

 

Then they shouldn't have broken into my *censored*ing house to begin with. Are you really making excuses for criminals right now? And If you bum rush someone with a bat or something when they have a gun they would shoot you. What kind of logic is that? Why would you take that chance? You would and should shoot them first if given the opportunity. It was their choice to break into my house. And if they have a gun that would be risking me life which means I am well within my right to kill the bastard. Your logic is so flawed. Like a teenage girl....I can't even right now.

 

And it depends on the initial investigation if they see a court case. Could be a possibility but not always a thing.

[Generations]

You're literally not even comprehending my posts, so...no...

 

Never "made excuses for criminals"...I said that you were at risk of...you know what...*Censored* it. Nevermind. Like I said, you clearly have a problem reading and/or comprehending things. There's no point. If you, at any point of what I posted, took any of that to mean that I was defending criminals or home invaders, then you just have some serious comprehension issues. I was explaining why it's a bad idea to put a dangerous person in a life or death situation where their only option is to fight back. I wasn't saying that it was somehow wrong to threaten their life.

[Bdon]

You're basically saying it's better to just let them have at it. Or that if someone comes to your house with a gun don't shoot at them because that could put their back against a wall and force them to now defend themselves in YOUR home. What kind of bullshit logic is that? They made that choice. They should automatically know what they are in for. And if they don't and die then so be it. There shouldn't be a gray area. You do what you have to and don't worry about killing them.

 

The rest of your "defend your home" strategy or lack thereof is preposterous so maybe you definitely shouldn't go any further. I have no problems comprehending. You just have really bad ideas when it comes to defending your shit.

[Generations]

Yeah...like I said, you have a comprehension problem. I'll leave it at that.

 

In your mind, I said that people shouldn't defend their property. I literally never said that. You're arguing with yourself. Which is a common occurrence, tbh.

[Bdon]

Yeah because you said so Gen. Mmmkay

You may not have meant it but you explained your version of home defense like shit.

 

So whatever helps you feel better about it.

[Generations]

Yeah because you said so Gen. Mmmkay

You may not have meant it but you explained your version of home defense like shit.

 

No, I really didn't.

 

You read it like shit (again, a very common occurrence from you).

 

All I said, was that it was more likely that a person who confronts an invader with a gun would be shot by said invader, than a person who confronts an invader with a non-lethal weapon. If you confront someone with potential death...then you've increased your own chances of being killed out of defense...because, in their mind, it automatically becomes them or you. That isn't "defending" or "protecting" home invaders...that isn't "bullshit home defense"...it's just logic. It goes back to that critical thinking that I mentioned earlier.

 

If you draw a gun on someone, it becomes a fight to the death...either them or you. That's just a fact. You better either kill that person, or incapacitate them fully...because they will do it to you if you don't. Most home invaders aren't looking to fire a single shot. If they have a gun, they certainly don't want to use it if they can help it. But now you've challenged them. You've said "me or you"...now you're about to be shot. And if you have a family in that house, you've just endangered them as well. My point was exactly that...having a gun in the event of a home invasion does not automatically make you safer...not if you instigate that type of scenario. Now you've taken what could have been resolved with a phone call to the police...and turned it into a shootout between them and you (and your family).

 

If a home invader doesn't have a gun, then by all means, drawing a gun on them is a great idea. An excellent way to keep them from going anywhere. But you damn well better be sure that they don't have a gun.

[Bdon]

Gen. I know what you said. Why don't you show me some numbers or statistics on that because your argument has fallen apart like 3 times. If a person has invaded your home with a gun, it doesn't matter what you have, "non-lethal" or lethal. If you confront him with it he will more than likely shoot you if he has or you give him the position to do so. As I said it really depends on the situation. The position you seem to be laying out will more than likely get you shot regardless though. Having a non lethal doesn't give you a better chance. That's what I'm saying. Now obviously if you try to draw on them with their gun pointed at you sure it's stupid but you aren't mentioning that here.

 

I'm not misunderstanding anything here. You didn't say the words "you can't defend your home" exactly but earlier today you said just let them take your shit and call the police. That's not defending your home. The police won't be there in time. One minute you think we should be passive and call the police and the other you want to bum rush the dude with a bat. It would've been far more logical for them not to break into my home. The minute he stepped into my home he should know that his life could be at stake. If he doesn't that's his problem.

 

It's like you're thinking of only one possibly scenario which you are not really laying out for anyone else here to get and act like that's the only one. Or are purposely not giving a situation out so you don't run the risk of being wrong. That's what you do though. Give vague statements and examples in a way that's hard to argue and then when someone starts exposing the depths of gray area you just stop it in its tracks and say "nope you are just incapable of comprehending. I'm not saying yadayada".

 

I can only discuss what you have said here. And that has all been nonsense. I can't read your mind. If you want to lay out a scenario then by all means. But you are trying miserably to put us in the mind of the intruders when that's lunacy. It doesn't matter. They can be unpredictable. When they step through my door I don't have time to think about whether or not they are there to harm someone. I automatically assume they are there to. You can't take that chance when defending yourself and family. Not on your own property in the middle of the night. They should've thought of that before doing it. When they step through my door, it is automatically them or me. And if I get the window I will shoot them. I'm not going to just assume they don't really want to use their gun and comply. What kind of bonehead would do that?

 

Being passive will more than likely be worse than being aggressive. The gun doesn't guarantee automatic safety but it sure as hell will help your chances. At the very least them running away. Most want easier targets.

[M3J]

 

 

 

 

Just wondering, can any of you Anericans tell me the actual point of owning a gun with bullets? The only purpose of a gun is to damage and hurt. Maybe for collection and display, but even that still doesn't explain why you need ammo, because surely if you're gonna hang it on your wall you're never gonna fire it?

 

the obvious ones being self-defense and hunting

 

Less obvious ones being recreational

 

hopefully that wasn't a serious question

Self defense from what? The goverment turning rougue even though it's like 90% there already? An alien invasion? As for hunting I'm surprised people still get off on injuring and killing innocent animals in 2017. Maybe for shooting cans and the like off walls if that's what you mean by "recreational" but even then my point about guns' only purpose to be to hurt and damage still stands.

....

 

Mainly from intruders and bad people. For example, a shop owner in NJ was being robbed by two kids with guns, but he managed to stop it and save his coworker's life by blasting them with his own shotgun.

 

And recreational mainly means hunting, shooting cans, and playing skeet.

OK. Even though there's like an 80% chance that whole thing wouldn't have happened if those kids didn't have easy access to guns.

 

I can kinda understand skeet and shooting cans, but hunting's BS.

 

I'm sure even gun lovers agree that guns should be locked up and kept out of kids' reach until they're properly educated or trained.

 

Eh, I'm of both opinions with hunting.

 

 

Funny thing is, despite reading conservative news all the time, I didn't know just how destructive Obama was to some areas in Middle East until I saw Muslim citizens in various affected areas talk about it. But regardless, Obama is still one of the best presidents we've had in the past few decades....

 

I'm not sure what people's definition of politically correct is. People will say immigrants are lazy freeloaders, but they'll also get offended over someone saying cops are murderers or Christians are whackos.

 

But wanting better gun control to save the lives of children isn't related to defending abortion. If the mother doesn't want to have a baby, what's the guarantee she'll treat the baby well? Her decision to get an abortion isn't made lightly, and it's her choice as she is the one who has to carry the fetus and give birth. Whereas with guns, kids either get accidentally shot at or hurt others accidentally.

 

Makes more sense to bring up how "pro-lifers" are against allowing safe asylum to pregnant refugee mothers and refugee babies or more welfare for families with babies.

Really can't see how he's been the best President in years but that's subjective. To the main point. I was making an example of something hypocritical. I really don't see how you missed the point. My examples were fine but are no matter. The point is still there. If you advocate for something like abortion or you're one of those parents that leave your kids in the car on a hot day. Then you don't really have any room to talk about the lives of other people. This wasn't about a woman's right to abort or not. If they want to then that's on them. But I don't really think they have a place to talk about whether or not guns should be allowed in the hands of people because of a chance of violence when they were perfectly fine ending one. Do you catch my drift? It's hypocritical just the same.

 

Lmao, bdon comparing abortion to gun control, I'd say I'm surprised but really I ain't.

smh

 

 

 

And to answer your spoilered question, because in American politics, gun control is just a large part of it due to gun culture.

 

 

It's retarded tho.

 

Not to be a broken record, but, I understand not wanting further regulation if you don't think it will help anything. BUT...it's really not the kind of thing that needs to pop up in a political discussion every single day. Hell...if there is a piece of gun legislation about to be signed tomorrow...then let's talk about it. But it's every single week without fail around here. In the meantime, there are are pieces of legislation regarding other (WAY more important things) that are being signed each day. I think we should address those...rather than having the same tired-ass arguments about guns, which neither side is ever going to agree on.

Who in here protects their house with a baseball bat and not a gun?

 

Plenty of people, tbh. Probably most people.

 

And in 99% (obvious exaggeration) of the cases, it's all that you really need. Most home-invaders are not carrying guns. Most are either random drunk/high people, or common burglars. It's a good idea to have a gun in your house (if you're on board with that)...but yeah, it's really not some great necessity like it's hyped up to be. Obviously, location is everything. If you live in a place like Chicago or Detroit...then yeah, I'd have a gun. But, again...I want to stress that most people really don't face that kind of risk at all. In fact, I once had a random drunk guy walk into my house from the bar down the street...and I was just like "You need to *censored*ing leave, hombre".

 

Also, let me ask...what's more likely to get you killed in the event that someone breaks into your home with a gun? Calmly doing what they say, or running out guns blazing and getting into a shootout with them? I know there are cases...like rape, where you need to shoot that *censored*er. But if someone wants to steal your shit, stand back and let them. Call the police. You'll probably get that shit back pretty quickly. You run around the corner with a baseball bat or even a knife, the invader probably won't immediately fire at you. You come around the corner and point a gun at them...you're definitely about to get shot out of defense. It's all great in theory that you silently get the drop on them and take them out...but that's really not likely to happen. And if you do kill that guy, then there are going to be court dates for you. It doesn't matter that it's your home and it was self defense. You won't necessarily be charged with anything, but there will be a process.

 

First of all. Who the hell is gonna just let someone come in and take their shit? Secondly, you won't get your shit back pretty quickly. Depending on the scenario, you may never get your shit back. Cops don't really have a high percentage rate of returned goods.

 

Thirdly, that running around the corner thing has got to be a gag. lol.

 

And finally. Depending again on scenario and depending on your state laws, if someone is in your house that isn't supposed to be there (as in breaking in or trespassing) and you shoot them it's a perfectly legal and reasonable. If it was your home and in self defense then it does matter, lol. Maybe not in NJ (which I would have to look up) but in a lot of states it is reasonable and within your rights. Look up castle doctrine. Then you'll know a little more about it.

 

How did I miss the point? I don't find supporting abortion but wanting to support stricter gun control laws as hypocritical. Guns take away lives unnecessarily whereas mothers might have their own reasons to get an abortion, which can even be to prevent the child from living a shitty life. A better example of hypocrisy would be "pro-life" people crying about a parent getting welfare checks to keep his child alive or forcing a mom to sacrifice her life for the fetus, who has low chances of surviving. Or how "pro-lifers" are against allowing refugees to enter and seek safe asylum.

[Generations]

 

Being passive will more than likely be worse than being aggressive. The gun doesn't guarantee automatic safety but it sure as hell will help your chances. At the very least them running away. Most want easier targets.

 

No one even said it was a good idea to be "passive". See...this is the shit that you do when you "read" things. - In no world should someone passively walk up to an invader and be like "Um...Mr. home-invader man...you can take whatever you like. Just please don't hurt me." This is the kind of shit that you come up with in your mind when you "read" things that you don't agree with.

 

I merely said that someone should call the police in the event of a break in. You call the police. You find yourself a suitable weapon...just in case the invader does confront you. But you don't whip out your pistol and go "yeehaw, I'm gonna bag me a baddie!". I really feel like you're disagreeing with me just to disagree...and this kind of shit is obnoxious as hell. You really love to put words into people's posts, and act like what they've said was entirely different to fit your own agenda. You're basically saying that anything short of whipping out a gun and shooting a home invader is a half measure. That's just stupid. And if you're not saying that, then I don't know why you're arguing with me...because nothing I've said outright slanders the use of guns in the home for protection...in appropriate moderation. By people who are comfortable and by people who are properly trained. All that I ever said against the use of guns in a home invasion, is that your average citizen is more likely to get themselves harmed or killed by getting into a shootout with an invader. I really don't think that's an untrue assessment. But, you're so wound up in your love of all things gun related, that all you want to do is argue...for what? What even is your point here?

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What a cluster*censored* of a "discussion".

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

ANYWAYS...

 

Grand Jury subpoenas handed out to Trump Jr. and co.

 

Lolz.

[Bdon]

 

 

Being passive will more than likely be worse than being aggressive. The gun doesn't guarantee automatic safety but it sure as hell will help your chances. At the very least them running away. Most want easier targets.

No one even said it was a good idea to be "passive". See...this is the shit that you do when you "read" things. - In no world should someone passively walk up to an invader and be like "Um...Mr. home-invader man...you can take whatever you like. Just please don't hurt me." This is the kind of shit that you come up with in your mind when you "read" things that you don't agree with.

 

I merely said that someone should call the police in the event of a break in. You call the police. You find yourself a suitable weapon...just in case the invader does confront you. But you don't whip out your pistol and go "yeehaw, I'm gonna bag me a baddie!". I really feel like you're disagreeing with me just to disagree...and this kind of shit is obnoxious as hell. You really love to put words into people's posts, and act like what they've said was entirely different to fit your own agenda. You're basically saying that anything short of whipping out a gun and shooting a home invader is a half measure. That's just stupid. And if you're not saying that, then I don't know why you're arguing with me...because nothing I've said outright slanders the use of guns in the home for protection...in appropriate moderation. By people who are comfortable and by people who are properly trained. All that I ever said against the use of guns in a home invasion, is that your average citizen is more likely to get themselves harmed or killed by getting into a shootout with an invader. I really don't think that's an untrue assessment. But, you're so wound up in your love of all things gun related, that all you want to do is argue...for what? What even is your point here?

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What a cluster*censored* of a "discussion".

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

ANYWAYS...

 

Grand Jury subpoenas handed out to Trump Jr. and co.

 

Lolz.

Oh my god it's like I'm talking to my aunt, lol. You said (and this is paraphrasing) that instead of trying to confront an invader that it's just best to let them take your shit and call the police to handle it and get your stuff back. That is being passive. You are letting them do as they please and letting them go before taking action. If you think that's the best course then that's on you but that is passive. There is absolutely no way to misconstrue that.

 

I also said that it depends on the scenario on how things could play out. If they are already in your house then you can wait for them to come to you. I'm not talking about running at them guns a blazing without having my surroundings in check. But I will shoot them if I see them or get that opportunity for sure. You were going on about how having a gun could escalate the situation and get people hurt. That's such a shallow statement but somewhat fair. Of course anything can happen. But again it depends on scenario. But, then you have to go and say something retarded like having a bat could fair better than a pistol against an armed invader because he's less likely to shoot you. Its not as life and death because it's non lethal and he may decide not to kill you in your own home. How lovely. Do you honestly not hear the absurdity there? Why the hell wouldn't you stop at your shallow statement? You had to continue on and assume the mindset of a home invader by thinking he didn't bring a gun into your home to actually use it. So since that's the case no one should escalate it. Just call the cops and wait for them cause they'll fix everything. Jesus

 

And there is no agenda here. Maybe you want there to be Idk. But I'm not seeing things the way I want. I'm reading your posts. If you can't understand using paraphrasing or reading between the lines then that's on you. No one else can control you taking it so literal. I know you can a little because you half-assed attempted to paraphrase my words. Just made a few things up along the way. If you do want more depth then bring up scenarios instead of just saying vague shit and maybe people won't give you such broad answers. Then you won't get pissy when they can't read your mind.

 

You're bitching about me putting words in your posts (which I'm really not) by putting words in mine. Then right after assuming what I'm saying is apart of an agenda, you admit you're not sure if it is or not. You're assessment is nothing more than baseless assumptions. Even at the end you had to get my love of guns in as a dig when it has nothing to do with it.

 

Cluster is putting it mildly. You past that point a while back

[Generations]

Calling the police is NOT being "passive"...it's being the opposite of a dumbass.

[Bdon]

Putting your life and your shit in someone else's hands when they could be 15 or more minutes out, is being a dumbass. Rely on yourself. Quit confusing common burglars with home invaders. If someone is willing to break into your home with you there, they are not your common thief. Relying on police is the dumbest thing you can do. You can call them if you get the chance. Won't be there in time though. But they sure as hell aren't the type of criminal that has no intention on using it, lol. And even if so, who cares. They came into my home and have threatened my well being. They lose their rights.

[Generations]

You really have a romanticized concept of home invasion, don't you? It would be laughable if it wasn't so concerning.

 

Hell...again, I never said that people shouldn't defend their home. Literally NEVER *censored*ING SAID THAT. I even went as far as to say that I personally have a plethora of weapons at my disposal that I would use in the event of a home invasion. But you're completely missing the point with your pseudo-macho bullshit. As usual.

 

Now...I'd like to stress a again...that I really do think this topic can move on from the same tired gun discussion...because I really don't think anyone feels like having it. Maybe go make a different topic for gun debates, so we don't have this same boring shit every week.

[maskedmaniac]

Calling the police is the smart thing to do because you will have to do that regardless of the outcome. Calling the coroner is also a good idea if you plan on shooting it out with the intruder(s). I personally would lock myself in my room if possible and wait for the cops to arrive, however if there are other people in the house I have to protect then yeah, I ain't waiting for him to get to them first.

[Bdon]

Not romanticizing anything. You don't seem to be taking them as serious as you should though. That's on you. I just pointed out the stupidity of you trying to layout the mindset of what you think a home invader would do. That is what's laughable.

 

And again you didn't say that literally. I already mentioned that. You are the only one hung up on it. You said it wasn't wise and people really shouldn't and they should call the police. But next you said you would still bum rush them with a bat or whatever you had lying around. This was more about the dumbshit you were actually saying like how they don't want to use their guns that they bring into your home which is nonsense for a couple reasons. Or how having a non lethal weapon would give you a better chance because the wouldn't feel as threatened.

[AONO.]

How can in any capacity sound reasonable that you need a *censored*ing gun to live peacfully in your own home? And what, be constantly on the edge if somone will break into your home? Shouldn't THAT be the problem?

 

I think what generally is the problem with U.S politics (since that is thread actually), are freaking priorities. And issuess that are constantly brought up that actually don't have that much of an impact on your own quality of life.

Healthcare? Only to cover your own ass. Education? Never heard of it.

Again, I'd really like to hear some opinions on how long do you think this shit will last? Because the system is becoming less and less sustainable evry day.