Political Crossfire Forums

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

It seems to me that all of the gun arguments are being waged by men. I am hoping to not only hear from men on this one but from the ladies as well.
Do you own a weapon for self protection or just cause you can have it?

If so, what caliber and make. I am just curious.

[img]

[/img]

aly · Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 18

thanks for bringing fair play into it....

i am a woman, i was in the army, and have been qualified with the m-16 a2, grenades... all that junk.....

at home as a civilian i do NOT own a gun or rifle nor do i ever intend to.

first of all, if someone is coming into my house as an intruder, i have a few things to consider.

A-- in my area this only happens because the thieves want to steal items such as DVD's, X box's, etc....

B-- I know my house in the dark better than they do, and the will I have will prevail over their hope to grab a few things and run.

C-- if i shoot someone who is trying to steal something of mine, I'm going to be in a legal battle.

D-- the gun can be turned on me and its just not worth it for whatever stupid things they're after....

so.... personally.... why should I have one? Its not that I don't know how to use guns even though i am a woman, its that i choose not to because i just don't see the benefit for me.

and no offense but my dvd collection just isn't worth trying to kill someone.

Green · Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:06 am Post subject:

I own a single shot, 22 cal noisy cricket.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

aly wrote: thanks for bringing fair play into it....

i am a woman, i was in the army, and have been qualified with the m-16 a2, grenades... all that junk.....

at home as a civilian i do NOT own a gun or rifle nor do i ever intend to.

And that is your right and your decision.

first of all, if someone is coming into my house as an intruder, i have a few things to consider.

aly wrote: A-- in my area this only happens because the thieves want to steal items such as DVD's, X box's, etc....

Hmm, so no rapists or serial murders live in your area?

aly wrote: B-- I know my house in the dark better than they do, and the will I have will prevail over their hope to grab a few things and run.

C-- if i shoot someone who is trying to steal something of mine, I'm going to be in a legal battle.

It depends on the locale. Locally, a man shot a burglar that was driving away and killed him. The DA elected not to press charges against the shooter.

aly wrote: D-- the gun can be turned on me and its just not worth it for whatever stupid things they're after....

so.... personally.... why should I have one? Its not that I don't know how to use guns even though i am a woman, its that i choose not to because i just don't see the benefit for me.

and no offense but my dvd collection just isn't worth trying to kill someone.

Do you have children?

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

aly wrote: thanks for bringing fair play into it....

i am a woman, i was in the army, and have been qualified with the m-16 a2, grenades... all that junk.....

at home as a civilian i do NOT own a gun or rifle nor do i ever intend to.

first of all, if someone is coming into my house as an intruder, i have a few things to consider.

A-- in my area this only happens because the thieves want to steal items such as DVD's, X box's, etc....

So, you've NEVER had a home invasion rape or murder happen in your area? On top of that, what gives theives the right to deprive you of property that you worked for, and that is yours to keep?

Quote: C-- if i shoot someone who is trying to steal something of mine, I'm going to be in a legal battle.

Perdidochas said it. It depends on your locale.

In Florida, if you see an intruder, and have reason to suspect that he's armed and in your house with malevolent intentions, you have the legal ground to defend not only your life, and the lives of your family, but also your property.

[quote]D-- the gun can be turned on me and its just not worth it for whatever stupid things they're after....
[/qoute]

At night, secure the firearm. During the day, wear it. Train with it, as well. Your firearm can only be turned on you if you don't know how to use it, or are being irresponsible with it.

Quote: so.... personally.... why should I have one? Its not that I don't know how to use guns even though i am a woman, its that i choose not to because i just don't see the benefit for me.

and no offense but my dvd collection just isn't worth trying to kill someone.

Not EVERY person who breaks into your house is looking to steal something.

Personally, if i were a woman, i'd want a firearm. The statistics on sexual assault and women are frightening.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

aly wrote: thanks for bringing fair play into it....

i am a woman, i was in the army, and have been qualified with the m-16 a2, grenades... all that junk.....

Just curious, what unit were you with?

aly wrote: at home as a civilian i do NOT own a gun or rifle nor do i ever intend to.

As long as you don't want to limit my right to own a gun, more power to you.

Quote: first of all, if someone is coming into my house as an intruder, i have a few things to consider.

A-- in my area this only happens because the thieves want to steal items such as DVD's, X box's, etc....

So no rapes or murders where you live? That must be nice. But what about your right to yoru property that you actually had to work for. You don't care that you worked and earned a living while someone else can break in and take your property away?

Quote: B-- I know my house in the dark better than they do, and the will I have will prevail over their hope to grab a few things and run.

C-- if i shoot someone who is trying to steal something of mine, I'm going to be in a legal battle.

Not in my state. Actually most states have a law that if someone enters your home without permission you as the homeowner/resident have the legal right to use force to defend yourself/your home. These laws are being made more broad in some states thanks to teh castle doctrine being passed.

Quote: D-- the gun can be turned on me and its just not worth it for whatever stupid things they're after....

Quote: so.... personally.... why should I have one? Its not that I don't know how to use guns even though i am a woman, its that i choose not to because i just don't see the benefit for me.

and no offense but my dvd collection just isn't worth trying to kill someone.

Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

airo wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

And the law certainly protects my liberties.

Your whole post implies you are living in some kind of dodgy feudal system. Well speak for yourself! I'm not!

lolninjaz · Joined: 05 Aug 2006 Posts: 153 Location: Georgia

britboy wrote:
Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

And the law certainly protects my liberties.

Your whole post implies you are living in some kind of dodgy feudal system. Well speak for yourself! I'm not!

That's definately nice, but where I live, the law would take at least 15 minutes to get here.

So I ask myself, what are the costs/benefits of having a firearm if nothing bad happens? For me, there is zero cost, since they were given to me, and zero benefit since I would have no need to defend myself.

Then I think, what are the costs/benefits of having a firearm if something bad does happen? Well, the cost is again nothing, but the benefit is potentially life-saving.

So no cost to me either way, but a very lucrative benefit should the worse happen.

Your mileage may vary.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

However, I argue that the owning of weapons is part of a right to life (i.e. the right to self defense) rather than a more vague liberty right. My owning a weapon does not endanger you in the least.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: airo wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

Well, first, I view the right to bear arms as part of a right to legitimate self defense, rather than one of protecting liberties. In terms of that, I have a question. If you were to call the police this second, and say that you were being burglarized by a 6'6" martial artist armed with a machete and an illegal handgun, how long would it take for the police to get there? WHat if you didn't have a phone? How long would it take? Well, I don't know about you, but it would take at least 3-4 minutes under ideal circumstances for police to arrive at my house. Due to living in a hurricane zone, I sometimes live in a house without power or phone (including cell phone) for a few days at a time. How long do you think it would take me to get a policeman under those circumstances? Due to both of those factors, I think I do need the ability to defend myself with a gun. Your experiences may differ, and you may not need that ability.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You need to rethink your hierarchy. There are some liberties that if lost I would be willing to loose lives to get back.

Lets run with your hierarchy though. My life (first prority) may be tired directly to my liberty to own a gun. I lived in the Florica Keys during the 2004 Hurricane Season, a relatively light one for that area, but there were still times when the power/phone lines were down. How would someone call the police then? They couldn't so it was up to that person and his neighbors to maintain order.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

Well, first, I view the right to bear arms as part of a right to legitimate self defense, rather than one of protecting liberties. In terms of that, I have a question. If you were to call the police this second, and say that you were being burglarized by a 6'6" martial artist armed with a machete and an illegal handgun, how long would it take for the police to get there? WHat if you didn't have a phone? How long would it take? Well, I don't know about you, but it would take at least 3-4 minutes under ideal circumstances for police to arrive at my house. Due to living in a hurricane zone, I sometimes live in a house without power or phone (including cell phone) for a few days at a time. How long do you think it would take me to get a policeman under those circumstances? Due to both of those factors, I think I do need the ability to defend myself with a gun. Your experiences may differ, and you may not need that ability.

Yes it would probably take them at least 10 minutes I suppose. 20 if theres a donut shop on route :wink:

I believe, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, that I do not need the ability to defend myself from people armed with more than fists (with fists I am lucky enough to be able to watch my own back -- but haven't even ever needed to). I have been alive over 30 years and have my own real life as evidence as well as everyone I have ever known! No-one has ever needed a weapon -- er -- ever. So I feel if I owned one there would be something wrong with me. After all, no-one else I've ever met IRL has ever needed one.

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

perdidochas wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

However, I argue that the owning of weapons is part of a right to life (i.e. the right to self defense) rather than a more vague liberty right. My owning a weapon does not endanger you in the least.

Oh I highly doubt your owning a gun endangers my life, but you is (are? is or are? what works here) not everybody. Under my bed there is an old pool umbrella poll. When not being used for home defense, it is widely known as "the Mag Ranger". It has made several appearances in local baseball games to great sucess. If somebody where to come into my house, they would be beaten unconcious well before they could draw a gun on me. I don't need a gun for self defense, but it would make me feel alot safer if I didn't have to worry about someone pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

ATrow wrote: perdidochas wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

However, I argue that the owning of weapons is part of a right to life (i.e. the right to self defense) rather than a more vague liberty right. My owning a weapon does not endanger you in the least.

Oh I highly doubt your owning a gun endangers my life, but you is (are? is or are? what works here) not everybody. Under my bed there is an old pool umbrella poll. When not being used for home defense, it is widely known as "the Mag Ranger". It has made several appearances in local baseball games to great sucess. If somebody where to come into my house, they would be beaten unconcious well before they could draw a gun on me. I don't need a gun for self defense, but it would make me feel alot safer if I didn't have to worry about someone pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street.

I don't worry about people pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street in Florida. I did worry about it when I was in California a few years ago. I figure in FL, there's less chance of it, since said gun-toting criminal is going to be less likely to draw a gun, as he doesn't know who might be armed around him. In CA, he would figure that anybody armed is also a criminal.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

perdidochas wrote: ATrow wrote: perdidochas wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

However, I argue that the owning of weapons is part of a right to life (i.e. the right to self defense) rather than a more vague liberty right. My owning a weapon does not endanger you in the least.

Oh I highly doubt your owning a gun endangers my life, but you is (are? is or are? what works here) not everybody. Under my bed there is an old pool umbrella poll. When not being used for home defense, it is widely known as "the Mag Ranger". It has made several appearances in local baseball games to great sucess. If somebody where to come into my house, they would be beaten unconcious well before they could draw a gun on me. I don't need a gun for self defense, but it would make me feel alot safer if I didn't have to worry about someone pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street.

I don't worry about people pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street in Florida. I did worry about it when I was in California a few years ago. I figure in FL, there's less chance of it, since said gun-toting criminal is going to be less likely to draw a gun, as he doesn't know who might be armed around him. In CA, he would figure that anybody armed is also a criminal.

Not to mention, in Florida we also have this odd idea where we punish people who use guns illegally, not who own them legally. It's sort of the opposite in Cali.

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

britboy wrote: airo wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

And the law certainly protects my liberties.

Your whole post implies you are living in some kind of dodgy feudal system. Well speak for yourself! I'm not!

I'm sorry, maybe i'm a little embittered about being oppressed by your nation, and then having an English [b]subject[/i] tell me "Oh, the government will keep you safe, and they know what's best for you, and they'll NEVER do wrong by you!"

We had an entire war over this very subject ;)

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

ATrow wrote: perdidochas wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

However, I argue that the owning of weapons is part of a right to life (i.e. the right to self defense) rather than a more vague liberty right. My owning a weapon does not endanger you in the least.

Oh I highly doubt your owning a gun endangers my life, but you is (are? is or are? what works here) not everybody. Under my bed there is an old pool umbrella poll. When not being used for home defense, it is widely known as "the Mag Ranger". It has made several appearances in local baseball games to great sucess. If somebody where to come into my house, they would be beaten unconcious well before they could draw a gun on me. I don't need a gun for self defense, but it would make me feel alot safer if I didn't have to worry about someone pulling a gun on me when I'm walking down the street.

Your trying to tell me that you can beat unconcious faster than a bullet can travel? By the way an average pistol round travels around 800 feet per second.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

airo wrote: britboy wrote: airo wrote: ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Your opinion that you are wlecome to just don't try to push said opinion on me.

But it's the hierarchy of liberties. Life is the first priority, liberty the second, and happiness come third. The protection of my life is premier to your liberty and happiness. And visa versa.

You don't realize the irony in your own statement?

In order to protect your liberties, you must have the ability to. It's no other person's job but your own to assert your own freedom. The government can't do it (And will more often do the opposite, should you allow them.), your neighbor can't do it, and, most importantly, the law can't do it.

How do YOU plan to do it without being properly equipped against those that would wish to take it? A sharp tongue is no match for a 55 grain bullet, and i doubt your vast intelligence is bullet proof.

Eh? I've never had to protect my liberties in the whole of my life. My government and my military do it for me thank you very much.

And the law certainly protects my liberties.

Your whole post implies you are living in some kind of dodgy feudal system. Well speak for yourself! I'm not!

I'm sorry, maybe i'm a little embittered about being oppressed by your nation, and then having an English [b]subject[/i] tell me "Oh, the government will keep you safe, and they know what's best for you, and they'll NEVER do wrong by you!"

We had an entire war over this very subject ;)

LoL! My history isn't very good I don't know much about the US war of independence, apart from the fact we got our asses kicked.

Some guy at work reckons we would have won but for the sneaky French attacking us at the same time .. but I dunnt -- I need to read more history!!