Mooney44Cards wrote: Dude you can't even hold up a gun let alone fire one.

Oh and lemme just check that huge database of home break-ins that have been thwarted by gun owners. Oh wait.

Now lemme check the database of people who have accidentally been killed by guns around the house. K just checking.

I'm not against gun ownership, just so you know. Seems like plenty of you collect them because you enjoy collecting them, much like some people with coins, etc. Other people hunt, or whatever. Cool with me. The idea of a gun for protection though is just so far fetched in my mind. It seems like its every gun lover's wet dream for some burgler to burgle their house and for them to empty a round into their cranium or something. It never happens though.

For the record I own 0 guns.

First of all, you might make a conversation or argument a little better if you weren't such a condescending and pompous ass. The tone of your post just automatically shows up as confrontational and uneducated.

Secondly, I have a gun(s), know how to load, shoot, clean and store it. I live in the country and the sheriff's office can take an extremely long time to get to my vicinity, on average about 45 minutes. Sorry, but if something dangerous or extreme happens to my household, I would much rather not have my or my family's blood be pudding by the time they get here.

Thirdly, just because I have guns for sport (target practice) and possibly protection, doesn't mean that I gleefully look forward to snuffing anybody, much less an intruder who may or may not want to kill/wound me or my family. I hope to God that I never have to deal with that scenario. If I ever, ever had to take off the safety, I would hope that a shot fired into the floor (just the sound would scare off most, I assume). I and most people, never would want to have to deal with the realization and consequences of having taken a life needlessly.
I do not want to ever have to deal with that sort of thing for the rest of my life. But I know that I have the means of protection if it ever comes to that in the meantime.
You just do not know what you're talking about when you throw off stupid, ignorant or useless words in the way that you did. *I prefer to apply the word ignorant for you, simply because you, in reality, have no idea what most gun owners think about why they want a gun or if they would have "wet dreams" in anticipation of using it.

To the rest who are interested in this thread, I apologize for sort of hijacking this thread. But, I feel that my viewpoint is the pretty basic views of most law-abiding gunowners and what I said needs to be said.
And now, a moment of enjoyment

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

My family has guns for the same reasons CenterBHSfan, we live in the middle of nowhere. The fastest they could possibly get there would be 20 mins.

Nothing wrong with guns as long as you are educated in how to handle them, and smart about it.

We always keep the ammo separate from the gun. My parents used gun locks when we were younger. Btw you can pick gun locks up for free at your local law enforcement agency, a must have if you got kids around.

Don't own any now but I will likely in the future. I enjoy hunting and wouldn't mind keeping one in my place of residence when I move out of home.

sherm03 wrote: I don't have any. But have been tossing the idea around about getting one to keep in the house for precautionary measures.

This.

sonofsam wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Oh and lemme just check that huge database of home break-ins that have been thwarted by gun owners. Oh wait.

Funny, it actually is huge. happens a couple times daily across the country

depends on who you ask, there are no reliable statistics to show that.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

This is also a quote from the same article:

"So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity."

So basically they analyzed 677 shootings. Were they random? Gang related? retaliation shootings? Pretty vague. I would have to bet my lunch money that many of the victims were NOT law-abiding citizens who are proficient at using their weapon properly in a bad situation. Sounds pretty anti-gun activist to me.

Another quote from the article:

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

Key word- speculates. this entire article is a one-sided anti-gun bias brain who could not speculate beyond what he wanted to find. Go ask the families of Virginia Tech students if proficient carriers are a good idea or not. If I am not mistaking, ALL of the people that died that day were unarmed.

the numbers still show that people who are armed were more likely to get shot, so no matter what anyone wants to speculate why, the numbers still show it. there was also another article i read that while some criminals admit they wouldnt rob someone if they thought they were armed, others said they welcomed the challenge of robbing someone who was also armed.

jmog wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

was he armed too? odds are you didnt even need a gun. just being there would have stopped him.

That's bull crap and you know it.

The burgler had to have some sort of weapon (just read below, he had a knife) and if queen didn't have a gun the burgler would have easily done whatever he wanted to queen.

why is it bull crap, most burglars hit places when people arent there(63% of homes during the day) and they are more likely to hit businesses at night(56% of businesses during the night). they dont want a confrontation. and why did he had to have a weapon? not even all robberies have weapons used in them, 40%. robbery is confrontational, burglary isnt.

Glory Days wrote:

sonofsam wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Oh and lemme just check that huge database of home break-ins that have been thwarted by gun owners. Oh wait.

Funny, it actually is huge. happens a couple times daily across the country

depends on who you ask, there are no reliable statistics to show that.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

This is also a quote from the same article:

"So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity."

So basically they analyzed 677 shootings. Were they random? Gang related? retaliation shootings? Pretty vague. I would have to bet my lunch money that many of the victims were NOT law-abiding citizens who are proficient at using their weapon properly in a bad situation. Sounds pretty anti-gun activist to me.

Another quote from the article:

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

Key word- speculates. this entire article is a one-sided anti-gun bias brain who could not speculate beyond what he wanted to find. Go ask the families of Virginia Tech students if proficient carriers are a good idea or not. If I am not mistaking, ALL of the people that died that day were unarmed.

the numbers still show that people who are armed were more likely to get shot, so no matter what anyone wants to speculate why, the numbers still show it. there was also another article i read that while some criminals admit they wouldnt rob someone if they thought they were armed, others said they welcomed the challenge of robbing someone who was also armed.

sonofsam was questioning the validity of the study. Those numbers showed one thing, but numbers can be influenced by how you pick the sample size of your study.

Glory Days wrote:

jmog wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

was he armed too? odds are you didnt even need a gun. just being there would have stopped him.

That's bull crap and you know it.

The burgler had to have some sort of weapon (just read below, he had a knife) and if queen didn't have a gun the burgler would have easily done whatever he wanted to queen.

why is it bull crap, most burglars hit places when people arent there(63% of homes during the day) and they are more likely to hit businesses at night(56% of businesses during the night). they dont want a confrontation. and why did he had to have a weapon? not even all robberies have weapons used in them, 40%. robbery is confrontational, burglary isnt.

It's bull crap because the burglar was armed.

Glory Days wrote: why is it bull crap, most burglars hit places when people arent there(63% of homes during the day) and they are more likely to hit businesses at night(56% of businesses during the night). they dont want a confrontation. and why did he had to have a weapon? not even all robberies have weapons used in them, 40%. robbery is confrontational, burglary isnt.

I assume the knife was for use as a burglary tool, but since I happened to be home, who is to say whether he would have used it as a weapon or not? Fortunately, I did not give him the chance to make that decision.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight!!!

I'm aware of three people in the city of Salem that could each create a WELL ARMED militia of at least 100 people.

Of course, one guy can get anything you could ever want.

"How many guns do you own?"

Enough to keep the city-slickers and trespassers off my property.

FatHobbit wrote:
It's bull crap because the burglar was armed.

yeah thats why i asked, the original story never mentioned the burglar having a weapon. my point was that burglars dont always use guns/weapons. just being in the house is enough to scare away most burglars and has nothing to do with you having a gun.

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:
It's bull crap because the burglar was armed.

yeah thats why i asked, the original story never mentioned the burglar having a weapon. my point was that burglars dont always use guns/weapons. just being in the house is enough to scare away most burglars and has nothing to do with you having a gun.

Who cares what the criminal has. If they enter someone elses house unwanted they should be prepared to pay the price. Why do you care about some worthless criminal's life. Also, the article you posted tells nothing about the study. So in theory, the majority of deaths could have been the in the ghetto, since it was in Philly, which has nothing to do with people with legit gun ownership for self defense purposes.

AMT .45 Hardballer

sonofsam wrote:

gerb131 wrote: Hi-Point 9mm
Remington 870 Express Camo
Mossberg 12ga pump (junky)
Ruger Mini 30
Glock 38 pistol (just purchased about 2 months ago)
Couple BB guns and air soft pellet guns

LOL I saw the Hi-Point 9mm and it reminded me of a funny story... When I went through the concealed carry course, they stressed BIG TIME not to show up with a Hi-Point. Two people still came packin' with their Hi-Points... First on the firing line was the lady that owned one... She fired the gun and the magazine fell out. She picked it back up, fired it again and the same result! The other was a guy that brought his up to the line, fired it once and the next round popped up through the chamber and lodged in the slide jamming the gun. It was freaking hysterical... The instructors allowed them to finish with revolvers they supplied. After the course was over, the instructor had a talk with everyone about Hi-Point firearms... They said "If you want to live in a gun fight, hope the other guy owns one of these". LOL

LOL! I have had the clip fall out once or twice as well but they were after market clips.

Noy going to list them all but I have;
6 hand guns
14 rifles
6 shotguns

This may help raise the average for the "chatter".

Zero don't need one.

Glory Days wrote:

sonofsam wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:
Oh and lemme just check that huge database of home break-ins that have been thwarted by gun owners. Oh wait.

Funny, it actually is huge. happens a couple times daily across the country

depends on who you ask, there are no reliable statistics to show that.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

This is also a quote from the same article:

"So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity."

So basically they analyzed 677 shootings. Were they random? Gang related? retaliation shootings? Pretty vague. I would have to bet my lunch money that many of the victims were NOT law-abiding citizens who are proficient at using their weapon properly in a bad situation. Sounds pretty anti-gun activist to me.

Another quote from the article:

"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates."

Key word- speculates. this entire article is a one-sided anti-gun bias brain who could not speculate beyond what he wanted to find. Go ask the families of Virginia Tech students if proficient carriers are a good idea or not. If I am not mistaking, ALL of the people that died that day were unarmed.

the numbers still show that people who are armed were more likely to get shot, so no matter what anyone wants to speculate why, the numbers still show it. there was also another article i read that while some criminals admit they wouldnt rob someone if they thought they were armed, others said they welcomed the challenge of robbing someone who was also armed.

jmog wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

was he armed too? odds are you didnt even need a gun. just being there would have stopped him.

That's bull crap and you know it.

The burgler had to have some sort of weapon (just read below, he had a knife) and if queen didn't have a gun the burgler would have easily done whatever he wanted to queen.

why is it bull crap, most burglars hit places when people arent there(63% of homes during the day) and they are more likely to hit businesses at night(56% of businesses during the night). they dont want a confrontation. and why did he had to have a weapon? not even all robberies have weapons used in them, 40%. robbery is confrontational, burglary isnt.

Because you are reading what you want the same way we are reading what we want. Basically it comes down to the possibility of someone entering you home... Are you going to piss your pants as you suggest or are you going to put an end to the threat... I choose to not piss my pants and beg someone not to shoot me. They will get one warning before they get two in the chest and one in the head.

BlueDevil11 wrote: Zero don't need one.

Nobody needs one until they need one.

sonofsam wrote: Because you are reading what you want the same way we are reading what we want. Basically it comes down to the possibility of someone entering you home... Are you going to piss your pants as you suggest or are you going to put an end to the threat... I choose to not piss my pants and beg someone not to shoot me. They will get one warning before they get two in the chest and one in the head.

you are right, i forget people just break into houses to randomly kill people.

None here either.

Now that my son is shooting we may buy a gun safe and begin looking for something we like so that we can go to the range more. It's one more thing we can do together and spend some time talking. I'll take all of those I can get.

I'd rather have 'em and not need 'em than need 'em and not have 'em...

25 guns total (handguns, rifles, shotguns)