Former neuroscience student, primary suspect in Aurora shootings.

[Geebeejay]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Oh please, the guy had smoke grenades and military grade rifles....this isn't a "gun control" issue if the weapons he had were obviously illegally obtained.

And who cares about whether the victims were "loved ones"....if someone busts into a movie theatre and opens fire on innocents, he should be killed...I don't really care how. Innocent people are dead either because of this guy's cold blood or his lunacy, and he has no business living in this world anymore effecting more innocent lives.

 

[gatorade848]

in china if you kill someone, its an automatic death penalty if found guilty. murder trials rarely last more than 6 month. too bad this guy could claim insanity and drag this on for years

 

[jjesque]

I heard rumors that he was a right wing conservative nutjob.

This was one of the funniest things to come out of an overall terrible situation. Brian Ross on ABC was all, "This just in: you know that shooter whose name is James Holmes, from Aurora, Colorado? Well I just searched on Google and found a Jim Holmes from Aurora, Colorado who is associated with the Tea Party. What could this mean?? Yeah."

Also, people cashing in on the tragedy already: https://www.facebook.com/ResonatorTheatrical/posts/262934733819540

 

[Ironmandoc]

85-95% of violent gun crimes are committed using illegally obtained weapons, depending on which study you look at. So, taking away 2nd amendment rights, will take guns away from citizens not most criminals. Making an illegal gun more illegal wont change things. All that is accomplished is de-arming innocent citizens...

This tragedy in Colorado would have occurred regardless of gun laws.

If someone in the audience had a concealed .38 and been bold, like the passengers on Flight 93, perhaps more lives could have been saved.

By taking away gun rights, you are empowering criminals!

 

[Dave89]

This was one of the funniest things to come out of an overall terrible situation. Brian Ross on ABC was all, "This just in: you know that shooter whose name is James Holmes, from Aurora, Colorado? Well I just searched on Google and found a Jim Holmes from Aurora, Colorado who is associated with the Tea Party. What could this mean?? Yeah."

Par for the course for the alphabet soup networks.

85-95% of violent gun crimes are committed using illegally obtained weapons, depending on which study you look at. So, taking away 2nd amendment rights, will take guns away from citizens not most criminals. Making an illegal gun more illegal wont change things. All that is accomplished is de-arming innocent citizens...

This tragedy in Colorado would have occurred regardless of gun laws.

If someone in the audience had a concealed .38 and been bold, like the passengers on Flight 93, perhaps more lives could have been saved.

By taking away gun rights, you are empowering criminals!

👍

 

[Freesia88]

85-95% of violent gun crimes are committed using illegally obtained weapons, depending on which study you look at. So, taking away 2nd amendment rights, will take guns away from citizens not most criminals. Making an illegal gun more illegal wont change things. All that is accomplished is de-arming innocent citizens...

This tragedy in Colorado would have occurred regardless of gun laws.

If someone in the audience had a concealed .38 and been bold, like the passengers on Flight 93, perhaps more lives could have been saved.

By taking away gun rights, you are empowering criminals!

Before you jump down my throat, I am neither pro nor anti gun control. I understand and value the need to protect the rights of the individual and I recognize that gun ownership in integral to the lives of many Americans. On the flip side, if the right to bear arms is guaranteed for some then it is the right of those who choose for whatever reason to forfeit this right, to be protected from the nut jobs out there who would abuse their constitutionally guaranteed rights to bear arms.

What I would like to understand is how come the people who use their right to bear arms never seem to be able to put that right to bear arms to good use when there is a need? We'll never know if there was anybody in thet theatre who had a gun because he or she was probably scared ****less and trying to make it to the nearest exit.

The right to bear arms does not come with the training and courage to use it with good judgement when there is a need.

 

[Dave89]

Before you jump down my throat, I am neither pro nor anti gun control. I understand and value the need to protect the rights of the individual and I recognize that gun ownership in integral to the lives of many Americans. On the flip side, if the right to bear arms is guaranteed for some then it is the right of those who choose for whatever reason to forfeit this right, to be protected from the nut jobs out there who would abuse their constitutionally guaranteed rights to bear arms.

What I would like to understand is how come the people who use their right to bear arms never seem to be able to put that right to bear arms to good use when there is a need? We'll never know if there was anybody in thet theatre who had a gun because he or she was probably scared ****less and trying to make it to the nearest exit.

The right to bear arms does not come with the training and courage to use it with good judgement when there is a need.

Do you even read the news?

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-09/...ngs-fatal-shootings-shooting-victims?_s=PM:US

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national...cala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html

 

[jjesque]

85-95% of violent gun crimes are committed using illegally obtained weapons, depending on which study you look at. So, taking away 2nd amendment rights, will take guns away from citizens not most criminals. Making an illegal gun more illegal wont change things. All that is accomplished is de-arming innocent citizens...

This tragedy in Colorado would have occurred regardless of gun laws.

If someone in the audience had a concealed .38 and been bold, like the passengers on Flight 93, perhaps more lives could have been saved.

By taking away gun rights, you are empowering criminals!

What is an "illegal" gun? Do illegal guns mainly originate in the US or abroad? If it is the former then it might be said that most illegal guns start off as legally-acquired guns. It is much easier (though by no means easy) to control the exchange of guns across borders than within borders.

 

[jjesque]

The right to bear arms does not come with the training and courage to use it with good judgement when there is a need.

I agree with this. Stats suggest that in all cases where a gun was used for self-defense, the gun was fired 28% of the time. This is an incredibly high rate to my ears, much higher than what you'd expect from a police force, for example. People always say "people, not guns, kill people" but that is the whole point of gun control -- to limit access to guns to people who are actually proven to be able to use them well, effectively and in the right circumstances. Considering 25% of households in the US are armed, I'd say standards right now are too lax.

 

[Freesia88]

Do you even read the news?

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-09/...ngs-fatal-shootings-shooting-victims?_s=PM:US

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national...cala-Internet-Cafe-Authorities-162941656.html

I am not going to get into an argument with you. Obviously these two cases you could locate in a couple of minutes justify the hundreds of cases where innocent peeple have been shot by gun toting idiots out there.

 

[Dave89]

I am not going to get into an argument with you. Obviously these two cases you could locate in a couple of minutes justify the hundreds of cases where innocent peeple have been shot by gun toting idiots out there.

There will always be human dirtbags who are willing and able to obtain all sorts of weapons illegally. All we can do is be as prepared as possible.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

So y'all are saying this guy wouldn't have found a way to kill people if guns were illegal? Not sure what fantasy world that would be in.

 

[Ironmandoc]

I am not going to get into an argument with you. Obviously these two cases you could locate in a couple of minutes justify the hundreds of cases where innocent peeple have been shot by gun toting idiots out there.

Except you're wrong since you don't consider the fact that 85-95% of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns. They are already illegal!!

 

[Camy99]

"A college syllabus that lists Holmes as a student shows that he may have taken a class in which he studied topics as diverse as substance abuse, schizophrenia, depression and other disorders."

Well, yeah, he was in Neuroscience. So did all the other 300 kids in the class, they're not psychopaths now. I hate when people blame these things on external events. Like a friend of mine keeps saying it's because Batman is a violent movie. -___-"
No, this is a sick and twisted, inhumane... living thing. There is no justification.

 

[jjesque]

So y'all are saying this guy wouldn't have found a way to kill people if guns were illegal? Not sure what fantasy world that would be in.

No one is offering insight on this particular case. I think the main thesis is that on a population level, gun-related morbidity and mortality, whether criminal, accidental, self-inflicted, etc., would go down if the general public has less access to firearms. Do you disagree with this?

Edit: One more stat I find interesting. Most sources suggest rates of robbery/assault are pretty similar across the US, Europe, Canada, etc. But homicide rates/rates of gun-related death are much higher in the US. Could it be that although violent crime in general occurs at similar rates in all these countries, those instances of crime more often lead to death in the US due to less restrictive gun laws?

 

[Freesia88]

Except you're wrong since you don't consider the fact that 85-95% of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns. They are already illegal!!

The "illegal" gun is what committed the crime? Not the person who has it? And would it make a difference if the person has purchased the gun legally and then committed the crime? The crime would have still been committed and someone would still be dead.

Unless you are saying there is some link between purchasing guns legally and the guns inherent ability or lack thereof to be harmful.

 

[Dave89]

The "illegal" gun is what committed the crime? Not the person who has it? And would it make a difference if the person has purchased the gun legally and then committed the crime? The crime would have still been committed and someone would still be dead.

Unless you are saying there is some link between purchasing guns legally and the guns inherent ability or lack thereof to be harmful.

IronMan's point is very clear: criminals will get guns either way.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

No one is offering insight on this particular case. I think the main thesis is that on a population level, gun-related morbidity and mortality, whether criminal, accidental, self-inflicted, etc., would go down if the general public has less access to firearms. Do you disagree with this?

Accidental? Probably. Well maybe not. A few weeks ago a guy had an illegal gun and shot himself in his... Yeah. Anyway, I do disagree. Sure didn't work in Chicago.

 

[Praefectus]

Except you're wrong since you don't consider the fact that 85-95% of gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns. They are already illegal!!

👍 I would rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Also, the best form of gun control is holding one with both hands.

 

[Dave89]

Also, the best form of gun control is holding one with both hands.

Excellent 😀

 

[Freesia88]

IronMan's point is very clear: criminals will get guns either way.

I am not sure why I am letting myself get dragged into an argument about this.😀

But it sounds to me like you are saying since criminals will get the guns either way, the solution is to loosen regulation on access to guns so that everybody will have the opportunity to protect themselves. Am I on track here?

In that case, what need is there for the police, the military and every other organization put together to give individuals specialized training on how to protect the society. We might as well disband them.

 

[Dave89]

I am not sure why I am letting myself get dragged into an argument about this.😀

But it sounds to me like you are saying since criminals will get the guns either way, the solution is to loosen regulation on access to guns so that everybody will have the opportunity to protect themselves. Am I on track here?

In that case, what need is there for the police, the military and every other organization put together to give individuals specialized training on how to protect the society. We might as well disband them.

Obviously, I support mental health checks for gun sales. But yes, more good people ought to have guns, or at least some form of protection.

This does not mean the need for police would disappear, since police are presumably better trained than ordinary civilians.

 

[Praefectus]

I am not sure why I am letting myself get dragged into an argument about this.😀

But it sounds to me like you are saying since criminals will get the guns either way, the solution is to loosen regulation on access to guns so that everybody will have the opportunity to protect themselves. Am I on track here?

In that case, what need is there for the police, the military and every other organization put together to give individuals specialized training on how to protect the society. We might as well disband them.

Strawman alert! The military and the police have their purpose, but they aren't present 24 hours a day. Even when they are there, they may not help. Remember New Orleans during Katrina? The police basically said "it's every man for himself", while looting still took place.

 

[Yoseph101]

In that case, what need is there for the police, the military and every other organization put together to give individuals specialized training on how to protect the society. We might as well disband them.

People being able to defend themselves and continuing government control of violence aren't mutually exclusive. Government has the power to use violence aggressively, citizens should only have to power to use violence defensively.

 

[Ironmandoc]

The "illegal" gun is what committed the crime? Not the person who has it? And would it make a difference if the person has purchased the gun legally and then committed the crime? The crime would have still been committed and someone would still be dead.

Unless you are saying there is some link between purchasing guns legally and the guns inherent ability or lack thereof to be harmful.

You are completely missing the point. Obviously I'm not saying that inanimate objects kill people. My point is that whether or not guns are illegal, criminals will use guns since they already mostly use illegal guns. So, delegalizing guns is only going to take guns out of citizens who acquire them legally for personal non-criminal reasons.

 

[fahimaz7]

MD/PhD?

...or just a MD wanna-be?

Not everyone wants to be a MD.

 

[Slowpoke]

possibly NSFW: Adultfriendfinder profile made from Holmes prior to the massacre (July 5th). Link is of his profile picture showing his dyed hair (he has been reported saying that he is "The Joker" while in custody).

http://wstaw.org/m/2012/07/20/fullpage.png

The amount of pre-meditation is sickening, his profile tagline is

"Will you visit me in prison?"

 

[Freesia88]

People being able to defend themselves and continuing government control of violence aren't mutually exclusive. Government has the power to use violence aggressively, citizens should only have to power to use violence defensively.

Strawman alert! The military and the police have their purpose, but they aren't present 24 hours a day. Even when they are there, they may not help. Remember New Orleans during Katrina? The police basically said "it's every man for himself", while looting still took place.

Obviously, I support mental health checks for gun sales. But yes, more good people ought to have guns, or at least some form of protection.

This does not mean the need for police would disappear, since police are presumably better trained than ordinary civilians.

Gentlemen ( I presume), believe me when I say I see your points and I am not necessarily disagreeing with you.

The one thing I am concerned about and I believe we all are, is the case when people take it upon themselves to point that gun at others and pull the trigger. There is no way to know when someone is going to go crazy and go out to shoot people, there is no way to know when a child is going to stumble upon the gun and do something stupid. What about the case where the legal gun owner is mistaken as to the identity of the purported criminal and ends up killing the wrong person?

I reiterate that the right to bear arms does not come with the training and courage to use it with good judgement when there is a need.

 

[Fivo]

I...In that case, what need is there for the police, the military and every other organization put together to give individuals specialized training on how to protect the society. We might as well disband them...

honest question:

If someone is breaking into your home, potentially armed, while your wife and children are home. How long do you think it would take for a police officer to arrive?

 

[PreMedOrDead]

I like the logic though.

Everyone has guns, so why would we need police? Amirite? Amirite?

Jesus.

 

[Freesia88]

honest question:

If someone is breaking into your home, potentially armed, while your wife and children are home. How long do you think it would take for a police officer to arrive?

Dude, even if I owned the secret to eternal life, joy and prosperity I would let this person take it. No possesion if worth my life or that of my family.

If I have the chance to call the police, I would do so and then do my best to make sure this intruder cannot find me or mine.

PS :- I'm a girl.

 

[Fivo]

Dude, even if I owned the secret to eternal life, joy and prosperity I would let this person take it. No possesion if worth my life or that of my family.

If I have the chance to call the police, I would do so and then do my best to make sure this intruder cannot find me or mine.

PS :- I'm a girl.

Ahh, that almost explains everything! Carry on now my queen 😀

 

[MaenadsDance]

Look, on a population level societies with fewer guns have fewer gun crimes (no duh) and also fewer gun-related deaths (also no duh). The problem with saying that most gun crimes in the US are committed with illegally-obtained weapons is that, even granting that, most of those guns were at some point legally obtained. If there are fewer guns available to possess legally, there's going to be fewer guns making their way into the black market and into the hands of criminal people.

The argument that people will commit murder no matter where they are has some truth to it; however, it's a lot harder to commit mass murder without assault weapons designed to fire as many bullets possible as quickly as possible. So when people are talking about banning or restricting the sale of automatic weapons, they have a point - these are guns whose primary (sole?) purpose is killing people, and which are used in particularly deadly gun crimes. Enthusiasts, of course, will say there's nothing as fun as firing a powerful gun, with which I sympathize; hunting and going to a firing range ARE fun things to do!

One last thing -- many gun-related deaths happen inside the home among family members or friends. I asked my father once - ex-military, DoD employee - why he, unlike many of his colleagues and students, never owned a gun, and he said it was because he didn't want to take the risk that he would one day lose his temper, or that a child would find the gun and hurt his or herself with it.

 

[Freesia88]

Ahh, that almost explains everything! Carry on now my queen 😀

I am going to ignore your condescending attitude and chalk it up to testosterone poisoning🙂.

Gun possession I think is justified in many cases, but there are just too many cases where it has resulted in needless deaths, so until a resolution is found which guarantees the right to protection of those who chose not to own guns, as much as it does those who chose to, I'm not going to look on it favorably.

 

[reef]

possibly NSFW: Adultfriendfinder profile made from Holmes prior to the massacre (July 5th). Link is of his profile picture showing his dyed hair (he has been reported saying that he is "The Joker" while in custody).

http://wstaw.org/m/2012/07/20/fullpage.png

The amount of pre-meditation is sickening, his profile tagline is

"Will you visit me in prison?"

Wow. He looks even creepier in that picture than the one the media is circulating if that's possible. And the tagline? Unbelievable, this man is insane

 

[PreMedOrDead]

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia.[1]
The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was first used in the text of the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).

Arguing about this is pointless. It's a constitutional right. There's no way in hell you're overturning one this prominent. We can't even make something that is clearly discriminatory, completely against the constitution, and absolutely embarrassing that our country is withholding from its citizens, gay marriage, legal. You think there's a shot in hell the right to bear arms will be appealed?

 

[MaenadsDance]

I am going to ignore your condescending attitude and chalk it up to testosterone poisoning🙂.

Gun possession I think is justified in many cases, but there are just too many cases where it has resulted in needless deaths, so until a resolution is found which guarantees the right to protection of those who chose not to own guns, as much as it does those who chose to, I'm not going to look on it favorably.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your politics), as gun rights are written into the Constitution, and as SCOTUS has been taking a fairly literal, conservative tack on the 2nd amendment recently, I doubt you'll ever see much gun control.

However, I do wish there were more gun SAFETY education. So many schools have DARE programs now -- I wish there were something equivalent for gun safety education in elementary school, where kids would be taught a little bit about how guns work, how to handle them safely (and, of course, NEVER EVER EVER to touch one without an adult in the room supervising them). That might cut down on a lot of accidental gun deaths.

As for murder... well, the US has made the decision that it's willing to accept a certain level of gun crime in return for the right to freely own guns. I'm not a huge fan of states with concealed/open carry laws for public buildings (because in my experience the people who WANT to carry publicly are usually vigilante-*******s a la Zimmerman), but the law is what it is.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Look, on a population level societies with fewer guns have fewer gun crimes (no duh) and also fewer gun-related deaths (also no duh). The problem with saying that most gun crimes in the US are committed with illegally-obtained weapons is that, even granting that, most of those guns were at some point legally obtained. If there are fewer guns available to possess legally, there's going to be fewer guns making their way into the black market and into the hands of criminal people.

The argument that people will commit murder no matter where they are has some truth to it; however, it's a lot harder to commit mass murder without assault weapons designed to fire as many bullets possible as quickly as possible. So when people are talking about banning or restricting the sale of automatic weapons, they have a point - these are guns whose primary (sole?) purpose is killing people, and which are used in particularly deadly gun crimes. Enthusiasts, of course, will say there's nothing as fun as firing a powerful gun, with which I sympathize; hunting and going to a firing range ARE fun things to do!

One last thing -- many gun-related deaths happen inside the home among family members or friends. I asked my father once - ex-military, DoD employee - why he, unlike many of his colleagues and students, never owned a gun, and he said it was because he didn't want to take the risk that he would one day lose his temper, or that a child would find the gun and hurt his or herself with it.

For the record. It was an AR-15, so it was a semi-auto rifle. To have a full auto, you have to have a class three firearms license.

 

[Geebeejay]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your politics), as gun rights are written into the Constitution, and as SCOTUS has been taking a fairly literal, conservative tack on the 2nd amendment recently, I doubt you'll ever see much gun control.

However, I do wish there were more gun SAFETY education. So many schools have DARE programs now -- I wish there were something equivalent for gun safety education in elementary school, where kids would be taught a little bit about how guns work, how to handle them safely (and, of course, NEVER EVER EVER to touch one without an adult in the room supervising them). That might cut down on a lot of accidental gun deaths.

As for murder... well, the US has made the decision that it's willing to accept a certain level of gun crime in return for the right to freely own guns. I'm not a huge fan of states with concealed/open carry laws for public buildings (because in my experience the people who WANT to carry publicly are usually vigilante-*******s a la Zimmerman), but the law is what it is.

Problem is without a license to conceal/carry, how are you going to transport your firearm from your house to the firing range? from the gun store to your house? From you're victim's house to the bottom of the lake? oh wait....

And kids shouldn't be touching guns PERIOD. If a firearm owner was responsible or competent in any way, his kid wouldn't know he owns a gun.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Problem is without a license to conceal/carry, how are you going to transport your firearm from your house to the firing range? from the gun store to your house? From you're victim's house to the bottom of the lake? oh wait....

And kids shouldn't be touching guns PERIOD. If a firearm owner was responsible or competent in any way, his kid wouldn't know he owns a gun.

Not sure about your state laws, but most (if not all) allow you to transport your firearms in the way you describe without a CHL. Your vehicle is an extension of your home.

 

[Geebeejay]

Not sure about your state laws, but most (if not all) allow you to transport your firearms in the way you describe without a CHL. Your vehicle is an extension of your home.

maybe you're right, that's just the reason I got my license to conceal (I didn't/don't know the law). It was no more difficult to get than a license to own a firearm since I have no record.

 

[Guero]

*enters dressed as a mod and says mockingly:

Moving to gun control.

🙂

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

maybe you're right, that's just the reason I got my license to conceal (I didn't/don't know the law). It was no more difficult to get than a license to own a firearm since I have no record.

Curious as to what state you live in. In Texas and Oklahoma you have to go to a class and also show your shooting proficiency to get a CHL. Also, in most states the castle doctrine allows people to carry their firearm in their vehicle.

 

[jjesque]

honest question:

If someone is breaking into your home, potentially armed, while your wife and children are home. How long do you think it would take for a police officer to arrive?

Here are my thoughts.

First, in a situation like that, it is ALWAYS most advisable for the family to call the police, lock their doors and wait for the police to come and handle the situation.

Your scenario rests on the assumption that the burglar is there to actively harm your family. As in, they will come upstairs, go into your bedroom and shoot you. How often is that the case?

More often, the scenario is that there is some burglar, perhaps armed, who is simply looking for some money for booze or a joint. They certainly aren't out to kill you or your family. They don't even want to be seen by your family, as that would make them identifiable. You could stay upstairs with doors locked and they'd leave you in peace with maybe some money lost. Now, imagine that every household is armed. The head of the household decides that they need to take care of the danger, because they'll be damned in anyone tries to steal from their household. Armed with a gun, they head downstairs to confront the burglar. Now, rather than avoiding the dangerous situation, the armed individual feels empowered to enter it.

There is a minuscule chance a person will encounter a situation dangerous enough to warrant a gun for self-protection. There is an even smaller chance the person is well-trained enough to know when and when not to use that gun. (Trayvon Martin, anyone?) There is a greater chance that the gun you have in your home will kill someone in your own family than an intruder.

So, no, I wouldn't want a gun in my home. Because at the end of the day I will probably never have a need to use one, and they have not been shown to be incredibly effective for self-protection. The only reason people want guns -- and will yell long and loud to get them -- is for their own ease of mind, not because of any real danger they are in.

 

[Slowpoke]

Wow. He looks even creepier in that picture than the one the media is circulating if that's possible. And the tagline? Unbelievable, this man is insane

Never have I run across a more appropriate use of the word 'insane'. There must be some molecular imbalances in his mind to not be able to empathize with the amount of lives he was going to *#$# over. I just can't comprehend what it would feel like to be a parent of a person in attendance that night, nor can I begin to wonder what the hell Holmes' parents are feeling and his sibling...

 

[jjesque]

Arguing about this is pointless. It's a constitutional right. There's no way in hell you're overturning one this prominent. We can't even make something that is clearly discriminatory, completely against the constitution, and absolutely embarrassing that our country is withholding from its citizens, gay marriage, legal. You think there's a shot in hell the right to bear arms will be appealed?

Doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

I find it interesting that the US, more than any other country I can think of, is so adamant to follow to the letter rules set forth in an 18th century document.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012" -- US Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsburg

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Here are my thoughts.

First, in a situation like that, it is ALWAYS most advisable for the family to call the police, lock their doors and wait for the police to come and handle the situation.

Your scenario rests on the assumption that the burglar is there to actively harm your family. As in, they will come upstairs, go into your bedroom and shoot you. How often is that the case?

More often, the scenario is that there is some burglar, perhaps armed, who is simply looking for some money for booze or a joint. They certainly aren't out to kill you or your family. They don't even want to be seen by your family, as that would make them identifiable. You could stay upstairs with doors locked and they'd leave you in peace with maybe some money lost. Now, imagine that every household is armed. The head of the household decides that they need to take care of the danger, because they'll be damned in anyone tries to steal from their household. Armed with a gun, they head downstairs to confront the burglar. Now, rather than avoiding the dangerous situation, the armed individual feels empowered to enter it.

There is a minuscule chance a person will encounter a situation dangerous enough to warrant a gun for self-protection. There is an even smaller chance the person is well-trained enough to know when and when not to use that gun. (Trayvon Martin, anyone?) There is a greater chance that the gun you have in your home will kill someone in your own family than an intruder.

So, no, I wouldn't want a gun in my home. Because at the end of the day I will probably never have a need to use one, and they have not been shown to be incredibly effective for self-protection. The only reason people want guns -- and will yell long and loud to get them -- is for their own ease of mind, not because of any real danger they are in.

Is this a serious post? How would anyone know the intentions of someone breaking into their home? Do you really think armed robbers carry a weapon for kicks? What if you did exactly as you said and then the person decided to come rape you? I am sure your upstairs doors will provide little defense. I think you are applying your own decency to people who don't share that same decency. If someone breaks into your home, they are putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Why should a homeowners life be put at risk for someone who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation?

 

[PreMedOrDead]

Doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

I find it interesting that the US, more than any other country I can think of, is so adamant to follow to the letter rules set forth in an 18th century document.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012" -- US Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsburg

I accept your challenge and raise you rules set forth thousands of years ago, and currently control the largest number of sheeple in the world:

 

[Freesia88]

Is this a serious post? How would anyone know the intentions of someone breaking into their home? Do you really think armed robbers carry a weapon for kicks? What if you did exactly as you said and then the person decided to come rape you? I am sure your upstairs doors will provide little defense. I think you are applying your own decency to people who don't share that same decency. If someone breaks into your home, they are putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Why should a homeowners life be put at risk for someone who knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation?

Which is why it is safer to stay out of sight and not try to be a freakin' hero. Cowardly? Probably, but chances are it will keep you alive better than going out to confront an armed maniac.

 

[Freesia88]

I accept your challenge and raise you rules set forth thousands of years ago, and currently control the largest number of sheeple in the world:

Oh man... You just had to take it there didn't you? 😀