Monday, February 11, 2013

A Question for Gun Owners

A question for people who own guns to "protect my home" or to "protect my family" - if someone breaks into your house, is your plan to engage in a gun battle with them?  Really?  That's your plan?

You can let them take your stuff, leave, then call the police and your insurance company.  Or you can pull out your shootin' 'arn if you can get to it, then start shooting on the theory that they won't shoot back nor shoot first.   But if your excuse for buying the gun is that criminals are armed should happen to be true, then you will be mistaken and they will shoot back.  Even if you shoot first, you would have to find and shoot all of them to death before they can shoot you or anyone in your family.  

Go back to your original theory that you were worried about the safety of your family.  Are you really going to turn a routine burglary into a bloodbath on the theory that that will make your family safer?

So let's go back to the reason you bought the gun.  It wasn't really to protect your family was it?



  1. The problem with your thinking is you are buying into their argument that they need a gun because a band of gun wielding criminals is going to break in to their home while they are sleeping. Except for cases involving drugs, this just does not happen. More people are killed by falling trees, more people are killed by falling televisions. There are many dangers in and around the house, armed marauders is not one of them.

  2. I agree. I am saying that even if one takes them at their word (which neither of us believes), what they say is still nonsense.

  3. Personally I own a gun in order defend myself and my family in the event of an Islamic takeover. Within 30-40 years, this will be very likely to occur.

  4. Anonymous9:11 PM

    If armed murders don't exist, can you explain why it is exactly that guns must be banned?

  5. Anonymous, the question isn't whether armed criminals exist - they do. It is whether getting into a gun battle with them in your house would be an intelligent way to protect your family - it wouldn't. Contrary to what others say, the guns that should be banned are rifles, not handguns. Liberals say that handguns should be restricted because they have no purpose except to kill people. Rifles are used for hunting wild animals wwhich is supposedly OK. I take the opposite position. Handguns usually kill one of three kinds of people - criminals, the paranoid assholes who like the feeling of power a gun gives them because they are personally inadequate in so many ways, and innocent by-standers who are often children. As to the criminals and the gun owners, good riddance. As to bystanders, there are too many of them. The herd needs thinning. Handguns are a way to do it. Small children are the worst. Those first graders at Sandy Hook Elementary would have been taking up space and resources for the next seventy or eighty years. Good riddance to them too.

    It is universally agreed that the world is over-populated with people. I is also universally agreed that the numbers and ranges of wild animals are continually shrinking because of the increasing number of people. Many kinds are becoming extinct. The obvious solution is to give everyone handguns and take away rifles. There are too many people and too few wild animals.

    Free handguns for everyone! Ban rifles!

  6. Duke, why wait thirty or forty years until the Muslims take over? Why not do what you can to prevent that by shooting Muslims now? That lady with four kids wearing a hijab in the grocery store for instance. Why not nail her with your handgun in the parking lot before she has any more?

  7. Not knowing whether the occupant of a dwelling is armed or not presents an element of risk that many would be criminals do not want to face. No one needs to fire a shot in order to prevent a home invasion.