Re: safety and politics
 

oookay... all sarcasm aside...

To point 1, that's not what I said. You were dallying dangerously close to the trap of logical fallacy by complaining about imperfect laws. To continue with Benson's slippery slope metaphor, pointing to a law's imperfection ("you'll stop law-abiding citizens from doing this but not criminals!") as a reason for its dismissal is a thin sheet of ice to dance upon. The "reasoning" employed, if broadly applied (as logic naturally can be) undermines ALL law, which is naturally imperfect. I'm not sure how that was unclear...

To point 2, I never said the laws themselves are fluid or mobile-- I said the lines they create are. And that is, of course, because laws tend to be struck down, sunset, rewritten, reinterpreted, etc by changing regimes and courts. Again, I don't get why there was any confusion...

Re: safety and politics
 

I won't speak for JoeF-- I'm sure he's capable. But I think your blanket assertion that your acceptance of an extreme should equate to everyone accepting an extreme (of one sort or another) is patently absurd, and may well point to why you're not grasping what I've been saying about logic and law. It may also indicate why you confuse extreme centrism with passivity. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't get the point of believing in something...if you think that following that belief to it's completion takes you somewhere you dont want to be.

Which is also why you dont see me get this involved in many threads...politics, religion, sex, whatever... i might drop a comment or two here or there but ultimately not worth the argument..and typically both sides are right (and for the most part..what you believe in sex or religion has no impact on me).

People's fear of guns and stance on gun control may very well directly affect me... so I have a difficult time not getting involved.

Though you may be rignt about me missing your underlining. The other explanation is I'm just an idiot, crazy "semi-paranoid x-military" gun-nut ;).. I never did do much... but I have done research on a few topics.

Re: safety and politics
 

This makes no sense: what is a 100% armed society? Toddlers with guns? What is 100% controlled society? Everyone in jail? These terms do not have any real meaning. Any argument can be made to look foolish by extrapolating it to an extreme.

Re: safety and politics
 

Fatalsaint:

You claim that you are comfortable with a 100% armed society? Really? I doubt it.

What is your position on the possession of nuclear arms by an individual in the US? Let's say out of the population of the US you could get half a dozen Americans who wanted to build such a bomb. Should they be allowed? (I bet you COULD get more than half a dozen Americans who would do so if they were permitted to.)

And by the way, when you say 100%, remember the discussion of prisoners? I think the US has a higher percentage of prisoners than almost any country in the world. Are they part of the 100%, or do they magically disappear in your calculations?

Re: safety and politics
 

Like I said; if I'm going to bother believing in something... I may as well not be afraid of where that may lead.

100% is 100%.. that isn't difficult to understand. I'd venture a guess in a 100% armed society you'd have significantly fewer prisoners.. since the vast majority of them would already be dead.

Would there be more crime? Who knows.. everyone carrying a gun might deter more crime.. might cause more crime.. won't know till we see it.

Nuclear weapons?? Let's take practical considerations here.. your average dozen americans can neither afford the parts, nor have any clue how to actual build such a device. Just because we don't place a ridiculous ban on something doesn't mean it's going to magically appear out of no where on every street corner. Your argument would be better using full-automatic weapons, machine guns and the like - THOSE would likely be everywhere.

Not to mention.. with everyone armed.. the likely hood of a dozen americans getting together.. deciding over drinks one night, half-drunk, that they wanna blow and destroy the world.. stumbling off to find their nearest black market... oh wait - everything's legal at this point, no need for black market - stumbling off to find their nearest dealer in plutonium (because that's such a common commodity today).. throwing it all together.. planting it .. and bombing los angeles back to the stone age.. and having no contact with not a single armed citizen that would likely bring attention to themself and these evil-doers is extremely unlikely.

You aren't going to get anywhere with me by using wordage and attacks that are supposed to appeal to my emotions. Useless.

Do I think a 100% armed society is a perfect society?? Meh.. doubtful. I have no idea what it'll look like.. It'd certainly be an exciting place.

And if you don't know what i mean by a 100% controlled society... read a book - or watch a movie. This isn't a rare idea. Equilibrium, 1984, Demolition Man, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, Walden Two... the list goes on.

I personally would rather be dead than be forced to live as a drone, stripped of all freedoms and every action controlled.. "For the good of society".

Both society's suck.. but in the extreme.. I'd take the armed the one.

Does that mean I'll bicker and fight over every single piece of anti-gun legislation you guys come up with? No.. probably not.. the NRA would.. but if the ban makes at least some sense.. I won't scream too loud. The AWB made 0 sense.. and some of the current restrictions do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their guns.. and the CCW licensing seems silly; since I need a background check and everything to make sure I can even OWN the gun... may as well allow me to carry it if I'm OK enough to own it.

What's the point of giving someone a gun if you don't want them ever to handle it?

So yes.. I think some existing laws suck.. I figure some existing laws were done with good intentions. Don't sell to prisoners, OK - I can buy that. Don't sell to people that are known psychopath's .. Ok.. I can buy that too.

Don't sell to this poor guy that checked himself in to a hospital once because he was extremely depressed over the death of his wife and children in a horrible accident, knew he needed help, got it, and is fine now??? - No... I disagree. But the way the current law is, AFAIK, if the guy has any mental health history it's am immediate denial. (Maybe Benson can chime in here).

So as you see.. even laws made with GOOD intentions affect GOOD people.

I do disagree with the stringent controls on Class III firearms (THESE are the assault weapons people.. not that cosmetic crap in the AWB) because it's already a point that.. if Gangs, drug dealers, and the like want their automatic weapons.. they're getting their automatic weapons - and your ban doesn't mean jack to them. It just makes it so people like me.. that pose no threat to you.. can't get one. OTOH - While I can argue the need for a semi-auto AR-15 to defend my home.. I'd be much harder pressed to do so with an M-16.. anything short of an all out apocalypse or the infamous tyrannical government .. and something like this may seem overkill.

And Texrat - I see no approach to logical fallacy when we say you are only preventing law-abiding citizens. The vast majority of firearms used in all crimes, are already illegal. Not to mention the crime itself is, by definition, illegal. What makes you think throwing more and more laws at people who quite obviously already don't give a hoot and hollar about your laws is going to do? Seriously? What do they care if there's just ONE MORE charge added to their pathetic little coffin? By definition, the only people who will be following your laws are law-abiding citizens.. the criminals - the one's you want to stop - by definition don't care about your laws.

Sure.. we need laws to ensure we can punish people after they break them.. but with the current laws so wholly not working - what's the point of stacking on another dozen except to restrict and piss off the normal average American that just wants to go plinking with his cool new Rambo gun?

Re: safety and politics
 

Not that I want to give you ongoing nightmares, but building a nuclear fission device (not a so-called "dirty bomb", but the real McCoy) is rather easy. All you need is a three storey house, some steel pipe, dynamite, lots of concrete and obviously two half-critical masses of plutonium (for rather apparent reasons one critical mass of plutonium is not what you should bid on on eBay).

Oh, and lots of suicidal henchmen, because you're going to have a high bodycount on radiation sickness during the construction.

The difficulty with fission devices is not that they're hard to construct, but that it's hard to get your paws on the "hot stuff". It was easier fifteen years ago, when the good old Soviet Union imploded and literally entire grams of weapons-grade plutonium were offered on the "free market" (a relation of mine was once offered three grams in Poland. He refused obviously; you need a lot more for a Bomb ;) and --

Excuse me a moment, there appears to be someone at the doo------

[ACCOUNT TERMINATED]

Re: safety and politics
 

Well, IANAL (should I have mentioned this before? ;)), and don't really know about this, but in my understanding the law in this is not entirely clear in the first place, but doesn't cover all mental health history, only "dangerous" stuff; no clue how that's defined legally or how it interacts with clinical definitions, but I've heard from people who might know that it is a mess. I believe that it is a denial for all time, even if the dangerous problems were confined to some period in the past.

Well, since I've already staked my tent here in the libertarian fringes, allow me to provide an argument for home defense, though it'll be for an M4, XM177/Commando, or maybe an M16A2 (which I'm guessing you meant) rather than the M16/M16A1/M16A3/M4A1. You probably know the difference, but I'll spell it out; the original M16 and M16A1 had a continuous-fire setting rather than a 3-round burst, which was found to be not very helpful for your typical infantryman; it made it easy to waste ammo and (with enough ammo) ruin the barrel through overheating, all without hitting more people. So with the M16A2, they switched to 3-round burst. Special forces preferred training as a solution, manually firing short bursts when appropriate, so both the M16A3 and M4A1 were produced as later continuous-fire models.

3-round (or so) bursts substantially increase the effectiveness of a rifle versus semi-automatic operation, as the first two or three rounds are fired without much recoil disruption, and you can wait for the muzzle to finish rising and dropping back on target before squeezing off the next burst. It gives more firepower on target (at moderate ranges) than long bursts or semi-automatic. Thus it has substantial advantage for home defense, against unarmored and especially armored intruders. (That said, there are some legitimate technical criticisms of the burst mechanism used in the M16 family, and the M4A1 might be a better choice, contingent on effective fire discipline.)

The reason for the M4 over M16A2? It's shorter, and so handles better inside a house. The shorter barrel gives reduced velocity, which causes serious deterioration in terminal ballistics (for mil-spec ammo) at longer ranges, but nearly identical at short range, so not a problem for home defense. I'm not sure on the Commando's ballistics, as I haven't seen numbers on it, but in an urban environment where shots outside 100 yards are unheard of, or when backed up with a rifle for long-range work, I'd go for it without hesitation. (However, even a semi-auto variant of M4/XM177/Commando is restricted, as it's also a Title II firearm -- a short-barreled rifle. These are handled slightly more liberally than machine guns, as newly constructed or imported ones can still be registered to make them transferable, but the restrictions on a registered SBR are the same as a transferable MG.)

So an M4 is more effective two ways than an M16, it handles better in a house or apartment, and it kills people better. Is it, as a result, needed for home defense? In a literal sense, of course not. You can compensate for the difference with additional training and/or luck. Then again, what weapon is needed, given the choice of a slightly inferior weapon?




Incidentally, if I had to pick any currently-legal AR-15 family weapon, in 5.56, for home defense, I'd probably build a 10.5" or maybe 7.5" barrel pistol with a flat-top upper and quad-rail fore-end with a laser sight, home-made SSC P7 light, and reflex optic.

The 7.5" barrel is actually feasible as a CCW as well, although I can't help but chuckle just as much at the impracticality of toting it under a jacket all day as at the probable dispersion of muggers on drawing it. Better to just stay out of the parts of town bad enough to justify something that bulky...

Example borrowed from juju151's post on page 11 here; mine would have a shorter buffer tube and a green laser. (and look through that whole thread if you're a gun nut like me; there's some pretty sexy AR-15 pistols out there...):
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/8836/arx04hb6.jpg
(Not sure about including flip-up iron sights on my build; I think they're ugly, and in the event that both the laser and optic were dead when I needed it, the flashlight would almost certainly not be. A maglite I just rebuilt with the LED and reflector I'd be using has a clearly-defined center beam of 3 feet at 10 yards, and I'd have that registered to POI as well. So even in the event of 2 simultaneous equipment failures, I should easily be able to put shots in a 1 foot circle from across the room...)

Re: safety and politics
 

Well....

Well put Benson!! I forgot to address the SBR.. good catch on that. When I purchased mine I wanted one similar to what you described.. but would rather have had the 11" or 14.5" (after hider).. the ballistics IIRC of a typical M4 with the 14" barrel should still be lethal at 100 yards.. if a shot such as that were needed.. and then of course, as you addressed.. much easier for use inside a home. But.. because of the rules - I ended up with a 16" (I don't like the permanently attached hiders), Quad-rail, troy flip-up battle rear-sight, but a fixed iron on front. And a vertical fore-grip because I could.

You got me on the burst as well.. I was too focused on the "full" auto and forgot the Burst of most modern M16/M4 rifles. In the military, the ones I particularly used were continuous-fire.. (M4A1 as you described, IIRC).

Re: safety and politics
 

That is an example of the scariest, most irresponsible thinking imaginable.

That sort of approach leads to collapse of civilized societies. History is littered with their fossils.

The logical fallacy construction begins once one utters the words "this won't stop determined criminals..."

Re: safety and politics
 

Thanks.. people have also called me the boogeyman, beezlebub, and I hide in your closets at night.



Boo.

Re: safety and politics
 

Any examples? Quite frankly, I can't think of any which can honestly be summed up so tidily, much less with such an abstract explanation as "being willing to accept where one's beliefs lead".

Re: safety and politics
 

Lebanon might be considered an example. I don't think gun control is very widespread there, which must be why it is so safe and why opinion of people outside the government is so respected. Hezbalah, for example, gets a lot of respect and is perfectly responsible.

Re: safety and politics
 

ALL examples (barring natural disasters).

Civilization collapse begins when its members aren't concerned about where their actions lead... exactly as fatalsaint was saying.

Of course it takes more than one... but it can start with one. Do I really need to provide examples? If so I'm stunned. Abstract or not, philosophies do have concrete consequences.

Re: safety and politics
 

If you are afraid of where your belief will take you... why believe in it?? If you are unsure or unwilling to follow through with your beliefs then what is the point of having them??

That's like believing in God.. and leading your life the way you think God wants you too - only to be unsure if you ever actually want to meet the man (or woman :)).. or even worse: Fear the day it comes to pass.

That's akin to starting a small fire in your living room for fun.. and then trying to absolve yourself of the consequences when your house burns down.

If you go down the road of gun control - be prepared to realize that the road may not end until all gun's are controlled. It's a very likely outcome.. whether you want it to or not..

It's like rolling a ball.. if you kick a ball straight it's going to keep rolling until something or someone kicks it into an alternate direction (or it reaches the end of it's course). If no one is able to shift that ball, or in this case - the gun legislators - from traveling down the seek for control and power.. then what we likely end up with a tightly controlled society.

Be careful what you wish for.. as they say.

So before I dare take a stance for, or against something - I must be prepared to not only defend my stance on the immediate issue at hand.. but the people that are exactly like half the people in this thread screaming about armed prisoners and the magical nukes that are going to appear in our children's cribs.

But.. don't get me wrong.. Being compared to the Roman Emperors and Hitler was an awesome ego boost. I went to bed smiling.

Re: safety and politics
 

I can see that signal is not getting through static, and that hyperbole is used to respond to sober objectivity. Maybe I'll dive back in when the ion storm has cleared. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Let me try this approach then:

I didn't say I wasn't concerned about where it leads.. I said I had already considered it - before performing the action. No one person can know everything, true.. but I must make the decision the way I can foresee it going from this point forward.

Following the two trails of thought.. I prefer anarchy over dictatorship/tyranny. To make a decision now.. only to worry about consequences later.. will always lead to the failure you are describing. I considered the consequences as I see them to both arguments.. and chose the one I'd prefer to accept.

eta: to stick with my hyberbole above (as I love extremes): Before I even bothered to light the match, to start the fire in my living room.. I would have already decided burning my house down was worth whatever it was I planned to gain from lighting said fire in my living room. I opt to not light the fire.. and then go "OH CRAP" when my house falls down around me. Granted, there's still "OH CRAP" moments in life.. but objectively looking and considering every decision you make, and what possible outcome it has in it's extreme, at least in my opinion, is the best way to establish a belief in anything.

Re: safety and politics
 

Anarchy is a transient state.

Re: safety and politics
 

For the most part, correct. From Anarchy one can re-build a society as it needs be. There is no control and no government, so one is formed. (Granted there are different views on what/how anarchy is/operates).

From an established Tyranny or Dictatorship it would be a little more difficult since the power and control are already held.. and thus must first be dismantled; before new power or control can be formed.

No government or empire in history has withstood the test of time.. ours is no different. At some point, it will crash, and a new system be implemented by the people whom remain.

All government have both Power and Control. It's how much you want to GIVE them that's the question.

Re: safety and politics
 

I'm amazed nobody has quoted Benjamin Franklin yet, regarding this issue:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That is: If you let your government take away your freedoms, with the promise that it will be safer for you, you don't deserve the freedoms nor the safety.

This applies equally to letting your government confiscate your water bottles at airport security and purchasing a handgun. Don't elect a government that scares you with talk of terrorists. And just as important, don't let fear or a desire for safety be your first guide in your decisions. If you want to buy a gun, ask yourself, "Why am I doing this? When do I think I'll need this? Who am I planning to shoot?" If you are doing it to protect yourself against thieves or terrorists or something, you're letting fear win.

(EDIT: If you're doing it because you like guns and you're into target practice, but you don't really have any plans to use it to stop home invaders, then that's a different story. I don't plan on owning any guns, but I respect the "geek factor" of liking guns just for their inherent coolness, without any interest in hurting anything with them)

Re: safety and politics
 

I was with you.. up to the end there.

Different guns I purchase for different reasons... some for hunting - some for protection... I don't consider the latter to be resigning myself to fear.. but to be prudent preparation and/or planning.

I mean.. if I'm standing in a road and a bus is coming at me.. and I decide to step out of it's line of motion.. I wouldn't call that letting fear win - I'd call that being logical...

Now.. if after this particular incident I want to ban buses...... well....

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't see the connection. There is nothing "prudent" about buying a gun for "protection", any more than it is "prudent" to confiscate water bottles at airport security.

Wearing your seatbelt is a proven, prudent safety measure. It is very likely you'll be in a car accident, and your seat belt will very likely protect you. It is extremely unlikely that you will be the victim of a crime where your gun will protect you.

You aren't James Bond. You don't need a gun for protection.

Re: safety and politics
 

You and I disagree there... I see it no different than the fact that I purchase a lock for my house door. A car door lock. A Car and house alarm. Building a 72 hour kit. Stocking food/water. etc.

AND wearing a seatbelt. Now.. whether you look at the statistics for or against gun control .. there's one common theme - there are thousands upon thousands of attacks, muggings, rapes, break-ins, violent crimes, etc. per year.

If I am unlikely to ever have a house break in.. I do not need an alarm, a lock on my door, or a dog either. Nor do I need a fire alarm, or a co2 detector...

But I have all of those as well.

I believe what old Franklin meant was that anyone that wants their liberties taken away to purchase safety deserves neither.

I am not asking for my liberties to be taken away.. but rather exercising my freedom to buy a commodity for whatever reason I want.

Nothing I list above interferes with anyone else's right, or my own. In fact they promote it. However, to ask for my ability to purchase a gun to be taken away in the name of safety is exactly what Franklin was warning against.

Re: safety and politics
 

Remember to ask for your martinis to be shaken, not stirred.

Re: safety and politics
 

I missed this edit at first.. so I'll say this too. I got my AR-15 because the gun is just downright cool. I mean.. next to the 1911 .45 - the AR-15 is one of the most customizable firearms out there.

There's different uppers, different lowers, different rails, chambers, sights, accessories, oh my!!

Building one of those suckers is like a Gamer building his first dell XPS system..

"OOH! I want some of these.. one of those.. oh- This video card!"

And then.. like the XPS system.. if I so decide to program my houses security alarm system into my computer ... then the added benefit that maybe someday it might just save my life.

So there.. I qualify for Your legitimate reason for my guns.. AND if, someday, I happen to protect my family from an intruder that apparently doesn't exist.. well - that was just an added bonus!!

(BTW: Your whole "You aren't James Bond" stuff is rather silly. James Bond isn't James Bond. I am, however, Former Military; served in Iraq for a tad over 2 years; and earned both the Expert Marksmen Medal with a *gasp* M-16, and the sharpshooter ribbon with the Sig P226. While I wasn't a marine; I do know my way around my guns; and I have seen guns save lives - so my argument for me still holds a little more water than to you.)

Re: safety and politics
 

It's a difference of degree only, and different people will make widely different estimates of their lives' value and of the risk of losing it in a manner preventable with a gun. The latter, particularly, has provably valid variability, as crime rates vary dramatically place-to-place, and I intuitively suppose the former varies chiefly with ones' wealth. The net result: while a few hundred dollars on a gun and the time investment of training yourself, and staying practiced, may actually be wasteful (and hence imprudent) for you, it may not for someone else who values their life higher, or who has a greater risk (even if somewhat this side of James Bond).

It's fundamentally an economic decision each person makes for themselves, even though most never frame it that way; they're stacking up certain costs (the gun, ammo, training) and possible costs (shooting the wrong person, feeling guilty about shooting the right person, having your gun taken and used against you) weighted by their probability estimates, against certain benefits (shooting sports, feeling confident you can protect your family) and possible benefits (saving your life, saving others' lives, deterring tyranny by contributing to the specter of revolution, hey, even stopping tyranny in actual revolution!) weighted by their estimated probabilities, and they wind up either deciding that they come out ahead buying the gun, or spending the money on something else more profitable.

They make that decision themselves, and it (very nearly) affects no-one but them. That's far better than me making the decision that everyone must always own a gun, or some antigunner making the decision that no-one can own a gun. And definitely better than a whopping government bureaucracy to analyze each person's risks (and possibly life-value assessors, too!) and tell us each whether we've got sufficient reason to own a gun.

And I don't see any persuasive argument for how one can be wrong in judging the value their own life has to them -- the probabilities are fair game to shoot down with statistics, but as I said, most people don't see the decision they're making for the cost/benefit analysis it is, and so they don't make separate estimates for us to challenge.

Re: safety and politics
 

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone did careful cost-benefit analysis before making decisions. Sadly, most people are driven by emotions, anxieties, desires, fears, compulsions, and a host of other things that lie below the level where such analysis is done.

(EDIT: And Benson, your cost-benefit analysis was lacking on the "cost" or "risk" side. For instance, you have to make sure that everyone with access to your gun(s) is properly trained, not just you. And how do you make your gun accessible enough to be used when needed, but safe enough to ensure that your kid doesn't accidentally shoot himself or a friend? What about the fact that if your house is broken into, and your gun(s) stolen, you've added to the problem of guns in criminal hands?)

And remember, guys, when introducing yourself, you have to say your last name twice, before and after your first name.

Re: safety and politics
 

heh. sure... that's usually the second thing I say to unknown, unwanted, unidentified folks barrelling into my house in the middle of the night... the exchange is usually something like:

*pop* *pop* *pop*

"Who goes there?"

...then, perhaps, the introductions can take place... usually during the disarming and/or handcuffing.

Re: safety and politics
 

Huh?? Wait.. No.. I'm confused! You just got done telling me that this can't happen! :confused:

My head hurts. And I was all ready to cancel my alarm system, sell my dog, and buy new doors too!! :(

Re: safety and politics
 

That actually supports one of MY arguments... maybe even inadvertantly?

Regardless, nicely done. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Qole, I like your water bottle examples.

Where's the harm in checking drink bottles to see if their seal has been broken or not?

If broken, where's the harm in a sniff test to make sure it's okay? etc etc etc.

Yeah, I know: we have time to remove our laptops from bags, take our shoes off and half-disrobe if it's cold weather, but no time for bottle checks! Just throw 'em away. You'll all be safer if we do. :rolleyes:

Re: safety and politics
 

No, I didn't; I said that, if it happens, your gun won't protect you. You'll most likely be out of the house.

Maybe you could mount a turret and couple it to a motion detector...

Speaking from personal experience, Mr. Bond?

Re: safety and politics
 

This just in--

DIFFERENCE DISCOVERED BETWEEN UNLIKELY AND IMPOSSIBLE

Information scientists today have confirmed that recent experiments bear out a long-held supposition: there is a measureable difference between the nebulous probability known as Unlikely and the more extreme variant identified as Impossible.

"It's true," asserted Dr. X. Factor, a reputable number guy. "We have pinpointed Unlikely as somewhere between .005% to as high as 1%. This isn't the same as Impossible."

Indeed, laboratories worldwide have replicated the results and the news has spread through the statistical community like wildfire. Entire graduate theses are being shredded en masse, clogging landfill operations and causing an uproar in the confetti industry.

"So many of our carefully crafted hypotheses have turned out to be nothing more than rank hyperbole instead," lamented one anonymous Yale student. "Who knew?"

Others are not so convinced.

"These results come from tests performed on laboratory mice, who were given tasks with outcomes judged by humans to be either Unlikely or Impossible," retorted Professor I. R. Lesser. "If tests on humans produce the same results, I'll accept them... until then, I'm skeptical."

Re: safety and politics
 

Yes. Because it's already supposed to be a rarity my house should even be broken into... but I have a wife that doesn't work and is home for the 9 hours I'm not...

And I very rarely ever leave the house after work except maybe for dinner once a week as a family, if that. (Usually can't afford it.. even weekends.)

So ... It's already supposed to be unlikely I should be robbed to begin with.

And then of that unlikely.. You're adding the other relatively short time that there is nobody at my house..

And calling that a most likely??? ... Eh.. Sure. That makes sense. :confused:

And then.. if I am home.. My handgun is always in either a quick-access touch-combo safe by my bed.. or on my hip.. and my AR is already ready; just inside a locked rifle case.

Yes... You're right.. very unlikely my guns will help me in the rare occasion my house is robbed, with an alarm system, during the 1 hour that I am not home, per week.

ETA: Cute Tex.. You first get mad at me for using Hyberboles and extremes, coupled with sarcasm and blanket statements.. And then you return with complete sarcasm that seems to attack my sarcastic remark to begin with.

I've discovered I simply don't understand your posts. I'm thinking you're suffering the same problems with regards to mine.

Re: safety and politics
 

The collapse of the confetti industry has completely destroyed the economy of the city of Shreddi, in southern Italy, you insensitive clod.

Re: safety and politics
 

Don't shoot blame the messenger!!! :mad:

Re: safety and politics
 

I have never gotten mad at any of your posts. That would be silly.

And you can have some tongue-in-cheek fun with this topic, but I can't??? :eek:

I hate double standards... [note: no anger is expressed in the preceeding statement, despite the politically-incorrect usage of the word "hate". This may or may not be a hate crime and is being investigated by the proper authorities. Your cooperation and patience is appreciated. -Echelon]

Re: safety and politics
 

It's good to see that we agree.

Thieves won't be bothered with your house; the house down the street, however, which is empty a lot of the time, or those neighbours who have a garage with a lock that can be easily jimmied... Or that guy who locks his bike with a chain lock to the sign post...

I'm also glad to hear that you are careful with your guns, keeping them locked up. That's very responsible of you.

Re: safety and politics
 

LOL qole...

My stepdad keeps the outdoor lights of their house off at all times. I told him that was crazy-- the result is a LOT of shadows around their windows and doors from heavy shrubbery and large trees.

He's convinced that thieves are attracted to brightly-lit dwellings because they can see the stuff to steal.

My powers of persuasion are failing on him, too. :o

Re: safety and politics
 

Fair enough.. Like I said.. I seem to be having a more than unusual time understanding half of your posts. Or even your actual point of view, regarding this topic, which I'm sure you've expressed.. it's just.. obviously above my intellect :(

And qole: Yes. I am responsible with my firearms (at least IMHO). I spend extra money (which is why I'm broke) buying the touch-key safe's instead of the turn dial cheap safe's because pushing a few buttons in succession is much easier, and faster, than trying to turn a dial - and yet still secure enough to keep my 6 y/o out. I have kids in my house. Do I think it's a good idea to keep a gun locked up when there is kids around?? Of course. Do I think the government should mandate what I do inside my house? Of course not.

So while I may agree with you that people should be responsible with firearms.. I don't agree the government should restrict and define what exactly that means. Only I know my kids, only you know yours.. and sometimes we don't even know our own kids.. but the decision on what age, and when, a kid should be able to access the gun is a decision for the parent. Not the .gov. I've read several stories of 12-14 year old kids saving their house, and in some cases, their siblings, from intruders with their parents guns.

Again.. just another area where the Parents need to be in charge.. not you, not me, and definitely not the Gubberment - like Benson said.

I keep my safe's bolted to something, to minimize the risk you pointed out.. and I check every last firearm every time I get home. If I ever find one missing (let's be honest, I can't guarantee my guns 100% of the time anymore than you can guarantee me safety without my guns 100% of the time).. You'd be right to believe my sorry back-side will be on the phone to police providing detailed descriptions of it and the serial numbers to it (yes.. have those too.)