A shotgun with buckshot is more than sufficient for most defensive situation if your inclined to live your life based on a gun fight that will likely never happen.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
A shotgun with buckshot is more than sufficient for most defensive situation if your inclined to live your life based on a gun fight that will likely never happen.
Wouldn't you regret the 30 round limit if your defensive situation needed say 31 rounds then. It seems a very arbitrary, and high, number. I reckon if you are in a situation where you need 30 rounds, you're in grave danger, as is any innocent bystander in your vicinity.
UK, Japan, Australia etc. Are the majority of illegal guns being smuggled over the border or made or are they legal guns ending up in criminals hands illegally? I think it’s the latter.
Hopefully it doesn’t get to that point! Owning a gun for self defense is to keep your hands warm and aliveFrom my cold dead hands.
(am i doing this right)?
That you HOPE will never happen! I would say that a shotgun should be able to defend your house under most circumstances, but when the average response time by Law Enforcement is over 7mins means that you might have to defend yourself for longer than 7 minutes.
That was exactly my point but nvm. You can't argue with someone who is so afraid and paranoid that he considers his rights over those of kids shot at school or those attending a concert or going to the cinema.
It seems to me that most of these mass shootings and otherwse accidental gun deaths are caused by the so called law abiding citizens and responsible gun owners. Until obviously they are not responsible or law abiding at all and they just snap or have become ill over time or whatever reason. The fact is if they weren't allowed to buy these weapons then these incidents wouldn't keep happening. It really is that simple
Anyway this is all futile as we were discussing severe gun restriction and changes to the law to protect innocent people, yet as usual the gun advocate comes in and screams about his personal rights (disregarding those of anyone shot or killed) and talks about needing protection from Ze Germans. I would hate to be so paranoid and fearful of things that i felt the need to own a gun. It's absurd. I'm sure some just think they are still living in the Wild West.
Yes you would
Again, the average response time is over 7 minutes by Law Enforcement officers. That means that you might need 2 x 30 mags.
More people who own guns for self defense will commit suicide with it, kill a family member or be injured/killed in an accidental shooting than will defend themselves with a gun. The risks of gun ownership far outweigh the benefits.
One more time. I am not paranoid, scared or afraid.
Would you call every politician or celebrity paranoid or afraid because they choose armed security? Would you consider yourself afraid of an automobile accident every time you put on your seatbelt?
Source?
I'm from Serbia, after the war there were guns everywhere in all forms. We had among the highest murder rates in the world and we were 2nd in the world just after the US in guns owned / population ( In recorded statistics ). Mass shootings, armed robberies and murders were common place.
In 2003 the Serbian government initiated the project to rid the country of it's post war rampant weapons ownership. Banning almost all form of private ownership with the obvious exceptions. Instead of prison sentences for illegal gun ownership heavy fines we're set with a minimum being 10 000 euros and higher if your income is higher, we have to remember that the average yearly income is around 5000 euros.
The government set up tip hotlines for people to call in if they knew somebody owning a gun illegally. A system was set in place for law inforcement to attain search warrants easily if guns were involved.
Immunity is given for handing in your weapons by calling the police to come and retrieve them, even 15 years later after the start of the initiative.
Today 2018 it is estimated that over 350 000 rifles, assault-rifles and handguns have been siezed and destroyed in a country with 7 million inhabitants.
Our murder rates have dropped by 480% and armed robbery by 350% at the same time we removed the life-sentance penalty and reduced the law inforcement budget by almost 15% ( mainly because of our poor economy ). Ofcourse there are other factors in those stats as the stability rised but it is hard to deny that a tighter control of guns has had a positive effect on our society.
I'm not saying this would work in the US or anything like that, just giving an example of how it worked for us.
In 2003 the Serbian government initiated the project to rid the country of it's post war rampant weapons ownership. Banning almost all form of private ownership with the obvious exceptions. Instead of prison sentences for illegal gun ownership heavy fines we're set with a minimum being 10 000 euros and higher if your income is higher, we have to remember that the average yearly income is around 5000 euros.
The government set up tip hotlines for people to call in if they knew somebody owning a gun illegally. A system was set in place for law inforcement to attain search warrants easily if guns were involved.
Immunity is given for handing in your weapons by calling the police to come and retrieve them, even 15 years later after the start of the initiative.
Today 2018 it is estimated that over 350 000 rifles, assault-rifles and handguns have been siezed and destroyed in a country with 7 million inhabitants.
Our murder rates have dropped by 480% and armed robbery by 350% at the same time we removed the life-sentance penalty and reduced the law inforcement budget by almost 15% ( mainly because of our poor economy ). Ofcourse there are other factors in those stats as the stability rised but it is hard to deny that a tighter control of guns has had a positive effect on our society.
I'm not saying this would work in the US or anything like that, just giving an example of how it worked for us.
i posted on last page: Interesting statistic: A gun in your home is 27 times more likely to kill someone as a result of suicide, accident or domestic violence than being used legally to stop a crime.
*I think that number is accurate off the top of my head
You keep saying this but they are not even remotely the same. In fact they are two of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard.
Most celebrities don't require armed guards all the time and those that do obviously have received threats or their managers have and their companies are protecting their assets.
Politicians are the same really but there is history of famous musicians and politicians being assassinated or kidnapped hence why they might feel the need for protection. Also I'm not famous so I don't have gangs of people following me everywhere, the paparazzi chasing me for pictures and fans wanting my autograph or those who don't like me shouting abuse and threats because they dont like my music, acting or policies.
Wearing a seatbelt is not even remotely the same and I'm actually offended you would use that as defence for carrying a firearm in public or owning an assault rifle. It could be raining, icy roads, my tyres could burst so could anyone else on the road. Myriad of reasons why wearing a seatbelt is responsible and safe. Carrying a gun In public is not responsible unless you are law enforcement, It's just sad, stupid and very dangerous imho.
Honestly those are not justification for your argument. Not even close. Actually if they are serious then I think you are just on the WUM and I think best ignored from now as John McEnroe said... You cannot be serious. And don't forget Ze Germans Tommy!
Last edited:
Impressive, but I don’t want my government to set up a tip hotline so citizens can report other citizens. That sounds like a terrible idea spawn from good intentions.
Of course it would work in the USA. It would just take time and obviously would be met with resistance at first but it would work in the end. The difference in the USA is that many politicians don't want it to change because they are paid by the gun companies and NRA. The same with health care, they don't want UHC because the insurance companies and drug manufacturers pay big money to not have it. Feck human life It's all about profit. The real trick is convincing the public they don't want UHC and that they will be losing their rights and will be in danger if they lose their guns.
The propaganda war is strong in the USA. That's the real reason the "liberals" are so hated, because many know the truth and have been educated to know when they are being lied to. The internet helps disprove the myths about universal healthcare and also shows the bullshit stats used by the NRA and the like The money men don't want the status quo being upset so they just pump more money in and fight back harder spreading more fear and paranoia and misinformation.
I’m offended
great, let’s all be offended!If you think I’m a WUM, then you haven’t been paying attention. Self defense isn’t a joke. If you want to ignore me, then I’d ask why you even came into this thread?
And who is defining the criminals? Sliiiippery slopeIts actually citizens reporting criminals.
I pity anyone that seriously thinks owning a gun should be legitimate means of self defense in a first world country.
Stop with this Lobbyist b*llshit! There’s just as much money that goes into the opposite Lobbyist groups. There are so many other Lobbyist groups that spend exponentially more than the NRA! The NRA, whether you like them or not, are not arguing that any criminal should have a firearm. They actually argue that illegal firearm possession should be penalized harder! The NRA stands for the LEGAL ownership of firearms. Period
Nothing is going to change until some very rich and powerful people suffer at the hands of some of this sort of violence. And unfortunately it has to happen on a scale that's hard to think about. Sandy hook wasn't enough of an emotional breaking point. It's just too entrenched in the psyche of some of the American people.
I’m offended
If you think I’m a WUM, then you haven’t been paying attention. Self defense isn’t a joke. If you want to ignore me, then I’d ask why you even came into this thread?
I've been involved in this thread for a few years now. I have as much right as anyone to be in here. I just find equating wearing a seatbelt to that of owning and carrying a gun in public quite literally one of the most moronic arguments I have ever heard. Hence why I said you must be on the WUM, if not then to be honest, It's not worth debating because the argument isn't based on logic and is devoid of reality.
And I pity anyone that finds themselves in a situation in the 1st world or 3rd world and only has a cellphone to defend themselves!
Again, you haven’t responded to my earlier question. If your grandmother is at home and a victim of a home invasion, your instructions would be what? Lay down?
I didn’t say you didn’t have a right to be here. You said that you were going to ignore me, and I was pointing out that that’s the equivalent of taking your ball and going home, in argumentative terms. But please, continue to call me scared and afraid.
WW2 wasn’t big enough for you? But WW2 actually showed why the average citizen should be armed to protect/defend themselves. Just imagine if Stalin, Mao and Hitler came up again an armed population
Edit: great username! @Desert Eagle
Last edited:
Again a ridiculous argument.. Yes lay down and phone the police. Yes let them take your shit, It's insured and not worth a fight over let alone losing your life or causing you to take anothers. Imagine if your kids had to see that? Imagine you missed and bullets hit your kids? There are so many reasons why it's just so much safer to hide and call the police.
Your arguments are weak, seriously flawed and incredibly paranoid and naive.
My advice would be the same as any crime prevention officer or law enforcement officer would say anywhere in the world. Avoid any sort of confrontation its only stuff. Secure your perimeter, have proper security lighting, gravel pathways, and alarm, motion sensing lighting, and a safe place in the house. Buying a dog is infinitely more of a deterrent than a firearm.
If they are already in your home before you are alerted the chances are they have the drop on you and no firearm will help. In fact it will more than likely escalate the situation.
One last word on this nonsensical self defense home invasion argument.........taking someone else's life will have far more of a negative impact on your life than losing some stuff.
You do realise you are basically saying you need to be armed in case the American military decides to turn it's guns on its own people right? No foreign army is going to invade you anytime soon.
Because you know that they're just after "the stuff"...
The overwhelming number of break-ins are property related.
It only takes one that isn't.
I guess if you're inclined to live in fear, one might also believe in the Bogeyman.
Having a gun in your home with the risk of suicide, accident and domestic violence are probably several thousand times more likely than being attacked by Jack the Ripper.
There are home invasions and murders in my city pretty much every other day. Relating it to something silly like the "bogeyman" doesn't help you.
Also, having pain medicine, rat/insect/lawn poison, blunt and sharp objects, can accomplish the same things as you've listed above.
You calling me naive
Like I said, I hope you never have to face that situation, but if you’re ever in a life or death situation, you’ll be begging for something stronger than your sense of humor and amazing ability to lay flat on the ground. I guess ignorance really is bliss!
Absolutely serious. What’s your answer to hostile aggression and armed takeover? Appeasement?
Again? What’s your answer? Appeasement? Nvm, don’t add anything to the argument...just laugh and say WTH?What in the hell?