Who said anything about a guarantee?
Wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee anything.
Locking my doors doesn't guarantee anything.
Driving safely doesn't guarantee anything.
Yet these are still worthwhile practices.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
Wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee anything.
Locking my doors doesn't guarantee anything.
Driving safely doesn't guarantee anything.
Yet these are still worthwhile practices.
Even more useful would be posting first-hand accounts from newspapers of persons that have used lawfully owned firearm to defend themselves or others (or video as was posted yesterday). Statistics can be and often are biased unfortunately. The NRA keeps track of such things in "the armed citizen". Anti gun folks will no doubt call these bogus since it is the NRA. But the accounts recorded are easily verified from the newspapers they are taken from. But let's be honest. There is nothing I could come up with that would sway your opinion in the least. And that's ok, you are entitled to your opinion.
Out of curiosity: do you have an AED in your home?
Anyone else who advocates guns for "family safety" can also feel free to chime in.
We don't have one.
There are any number of things we could buy to address potential tribulations.
We do some, but not others.
Do you have one?
Why?
I'm not sure why I would need one. I am in very good health. My children are too. Not sure how you mean to tie that into the discussion.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Many of the NRA's claims have been heavily disputed, plus they have a vested interest in telling people that security and love is gun-based.
An example is the tens of thousands that supposedly are saved each year because people have guns in their home, whereas verifying or denying such a claim is logically impossible. It's mainly only studies through universities and non-political sources that may get at least somewhat closer to the truth, and those are the ones I mostly rely on.
I have no doubt that you're all in good health - your risk of heart attacks or other heart problems is probably very low... but is it higher or lower than your risk of being injured or killed by an armed intruder?
A home AED is available for about $2,000 Canadian, which would work out to about $1,550 US at today's exchange rate.
How much do you think you've paid for "home defense" firearms and related purchases to keep your family safe? Don't count hunting weapons, but count any weapons that you've specifically purchased for home defense, plus training in their use, their ammo, quick draw safe (if you have one), etc.
I don't have one myself.
If a rational person is concerned with keeping their family safe and healthy but only has limited funds to do it (like we all do), they would go for the purchases that get the most "bang for the buck" in terms of safety benefit per dollar spent before going for purchases with less "bang".
OTOH, someone who was approaching the issue emotionally instead of rationally might pick a purchase that appeals to them for emotional reasons then try to rationalize it after the fact.
I'm interested to see whether the pro-gun people here weighed their options and really did decide to prioritize one expensive option (firearms) over another one (an AED) based on some sort of criteria, or if they jumped to guns without thinking much about the big picture of family safety.
However, we can't infer how a person prioritizes one over the other if they have both a gun and an AED or if they have neither.
The reason I picked AEDs specifically is that it addresses the same issue that has already been brought up: 911 can take a while to respond.
Personally, I've never been caught waiting for police in an emergency, but I have been caught waiting for what seemed like ages for fire and EMS on different occasions.
I say it can be perfectly rational to keep a handgun, but not an AED.
Sure... for instance, if someone really values target shooting, an AED won't help them at all in that regard.
Edit: if our starting points are "I want to keep my family safe" and "emergency services might not be able to respond in time to prevent harm to my family", there's a huge spectrum of options to choose from, even for someone who thinks that a gun might be a good choice. I'm interested in the process that someone uses to screen out, say, an AED, a residential sprinkler system, or installing GFIs on every outlet to be left with getting a gun as the best option.
Last edited:
Ok, I see where your going. To answer your questions: I didn't spend my money on firearms training, the Police department provides that throughout the year. For civilians I do highly recommend firearms safety training for anyone considering a gun for self defense purposes. As far as how much I have spent on self defense handguns? Lots less than I spend on scuba equipment. I have one duty handgun and one conceal carry handgun.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
2nd amendment; give me a break.
Are you worried that the King of England is going to break into your house and start pushing you around?
The way I see it: the "dirty harry/wild west" stereotype is some kind of pervasive trash that ONLY affects the United States. Maybe there are more proud, wilful criminals in the United States. If I had to guess, it's a culturally repulsive attitude that has eventuated out of historical US racism.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Good. I hope you had the capacity to understand it.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
LOL
"the sickos"
That's your imagination buddy; your own brain.
If there are any "sickos" out there that we should be worried about, it's people like you who have this garbage floating around their heads.
Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
Why don't you explain to me why it's bad for one who wishes to protect themselves and their family from criminals, crooked cops, drug lords, gang members and corrupt politicians? Maybe you like to be defenseless and at their mercy, but I don't.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You don't think "bad guys" exist or you think that we should not defend ourselves against them?
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Lol, who says I'm "defenceless"? You? I invite you to prove how "defenceless" I am.
As for your beige depiction and reflection of your perverted interpretation of all the garbage television and movies you've been taking way too seriously, you need to lay off it because you're obviously interpreting it in a far too literally.
"criminals, crooked cops, drug lords, gang members and corrupt politicians" - what a joke.
You sound like the type of psycho who bubbles over the pot like that Zimmerman fiasco.
Enjoy your ****ed up paranoid life scared of all these phantoms.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Due profession demands, I deal with all kinds of these "bad guys" you silly people get duped into being terrified by the media. The "bad guys" are actually more pathetic and scared than you would think.
You don't need the ****ing guns.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
So basically you don't believe "bad guys" exist.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Idiotic thing for you to suggest. There is no way to mitigate it.
I am a criminal defence lawyer, so I deal with what you refer to (stupidly and reductively I might add) as "bad guys" on a daily basis. Sometimes 20+ of your proclaimed "bad guys" per day.
Maybe stop jacking off over Die Hard movies and get a grip on real life.
"Bad guys" - you have no idea how much of an idiot using that term makes you out to be.