Gun Guru's, need advice...

[CliffnDallas]

I am the only dangerous and evil thing in my area and all others know not to mess with me or I will smite them.

I'm the same way. But only at work.

 

[kapolani]

Do you also have a fully stocked nuclear bunker? :laugh2:

You never know there might be a nuclear war or some terrorist that is planning on striking in your area.

Better safe than sorry.:

I think you're joking.

Not ten miles from me though is a nuclear power plant. If something were to happen to that it would be reallly ugly.

Logically it is a great target of opportunity if some crazies wanted to do something horrific.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I live in an affluent neigborhood.

To me, though, logic seems to dictate that my area would be the perfect place to commit a robbery/home invasion. If you were a criminal wouldn't you want to get the most out of it that you can?

It's happening all around us. I see/read the news. It's starting to creep into the 'good' areas as well. Just up the road from where we live there have been a few home invasions.

Maryland is having a real illegal alien problem as well. Just recently a woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by 8 of them. It's a sad, sad world we are living in. Homeless people are starting to scavenge/forage in people's garages etc. I fear if the economy doesn't improve this will continue to happen and more frequently.

My wife means the world to me. If I can have just one fighting chance to keep her safe - I'll take it.

I just can't see myself living in an area like that...just would not be worth it to me. If safety is my primary concern for my family I would rather remove the majority of threats by moving to another area instead of using the buying of guns to justify my peace of mind and safety of my family.

Not being a jerk but I just don't get the idea of having money enough to live in an area with lower risks but instead buying a butt load of guns, staying in the same place and saying it is safe just because I have the guns.

Just wired a different way I guess. Kinda of like when I was serving and finding a few conscientious objectors in the army...just did not make a lot of sense to me to be that way and join the army. But that does not make it wrong for anyone else...just not for me.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have had no problems in my neighborhood but I feel more comfortable knowing I have the means to protect myself and property which by Texas Law I'm allowed to defend. I'm not foolish enough to think these acts by criminals are not real, they are very real

 

[CliffnDallas]

I live in an affluent neigborhood.

To me, though, logic seems to dictate that my area would be the perfect place to commit a robbery/home invasion. If you were a criminal wouldn't you want to get the most out of it that you can?

It's happening all around us. I see/read the news. It's starting to creep into the 'good' areas as well. Just up the road from where we live there have been a few home invasions.

Maryland is having a real illegal alien problem as well. Just recently a woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by 8 of them. It's a sad, sad world we are living in. Homeless people are starting to scavenge/forage in people's garages etc. I fear if the economy doesn't improve this will continue to happen and more frequently.

My wife means the world to me. If I can have just one fighting chance to keep her safe - I'll take it.

And yet there are those who would deny you the chance. Either out of their own fear or their own gutlessness and their need to force their trepidation and will on every one else.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think you're joking.

Not ten miles from me though is a nuclear power plant. If something were to happen to that it would be reallly ugly.

Logically it is a great target of opportunity if some crazies wanted to do something horrific.

I would actually think it would be cool to have a bunker...I would make a recording studio out of it and make it my musical man cave.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

And yet there are those who would deny you the chance. Either out of their own fear or their own gutlessness and their need to force their trepidation and will on every one else.

To me it would seem the fear is already there if you have to arm yourself to the teeth with a buttload of guns. I would think if you are not afraid you would not need the guns. But as I said before...I am a bad arse.:

 

[kapolani]

I just can't see myself living in an area like that...just would not be worth it to me. If safety is my primary concern for my family I would rather remove the majority of threats by moving to another area instead of using the buying of guns to justify my peace of mind and safety of my family.

Not being a jerk but I just don't get the idea of having money enough to live in an area with lower risks but instead buying a butt load of guns, staying in the same place and saying it is safe just because I have the guns.

Just wired a different way I guess. Kinda of like when I was serving and finding a few conscientious objectors in the army...just did not make a lot of sense to me to be that way and join the army. But that does not make it wrong for anyone else...just not for me.

I understand what you're saying.

I'm not using it to rationalize why I collect guns. It's something I do.

I don't think the place you're describing exists anymore. At least not in America. It can happen anywhere. It is.

I work on a Naval Air Test Center. Lots of 'rich' engineers. But, as always crime follows places where business is lucrative. I'm not trying to make it sound like I live in Beirut.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I understand what you're saying.

I'm not using it to rationalize why I collect guns. It's something I do.

I don't think the place you're describing exists anymore. At least not in America. It can happen anywhere. It is.

I work on a Naval Air Test Center. Lots of 'rich' engineers. But, as always crime follows places where business is lucrative. I'm not trying to make it sound like I live in Beirut.

I, my family and my wife's family has never had an incident with a break in or attack at their homes that I am aware of. That seems to be the norm where I live, but I am not naive to think it is the norm elsewhere.

Also you noted that you collect as a hobby and I don't see anything wrong with that...as I stated before I want to get a gun just so I can go to the range and have something to do...hence the reason I want a hand gun and not a shot gun. Plus there are plenty of people in my area that have rifles not for self defense but because we are in an area where there is a great deal of hunters. So just so there is no mistake...I am not against people having guns. I guess I am just lucky that I live in an area where I don't have to have one because of the crime in my area and because I fear something will happen to me or mine.

 

[kapolani]

To me it would seem the fear is already there if you have to arm yourself to the teeth with a buttload of guns. I would think if you are not afraid you would not need the guns. But as I said before...I am a bad arse.:

I don't own guns because I'm afraid.

I own guns because it's a hobby, I hunt, and because I can. The ability to protect my family - though extremely important - is an ancillary benefit to my hobby.

If every gun in existence could be taken away and all we had was unarmed combat I'd be all for it. I'd be miss hunting and shooting. But, if all I had to protect my family was my body and my training I'll take my chances.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Wow, I have never seen such failed logic. You ask what is a police officer doing when he is patrolling. The response would be something like "He isn't protecting anything" without anything of real substance to support it.

I have a question. A rhetorical one, then I'm done.

If you are a parent of a child, you are considered the guardian. Yet, when your child goes to school and you go off to work, you are no longer the protective guardian? You are 100% a failed parent then. Just like all the police officers that patrol the subways aren't protecting cause once I'm on the subway, they fail cause they didn't come with me onto the subway itself.

Bodyguards remain with a person, a police officer isn't your bodyguard.

 

[kapolani]

I, my family and my wife's family has never had an incident with a break in or attack at their homes that I am aware of. That seems to be the norm where I live, but I am not naive to think it is the norm elsewhere.

Also you noted that you collect as a hobby and I don't see anything wrong with that...as I stated before I want to get a gun just so I can go to the range and have something to do...hence the reason I want a hand gun and not a shot gun. Plus there are plenty of people in my area that have rifles not for self defense but because we are in an area where there is a great deal of hunters. So just so there is no mistake...I am not against people having guns. I guess I am just lucky that I live in an area where I don't have to have one because of the crime in my area and because I fear something will happen to me or mine.

I understand.

I don't know you're background so I'm not assuming anything about you.

I've been around the military and law enforcement my whole life. I guess because I know there are evil people in this world it makes me think differently.

I have one question though. Even if _you've_ never had an incident in your life how can you be so certain that nothing can happen to you or your family? I just can't fathom that kind of thinking.

 

[kapolani]

Wow, I have never seen such failed logic. You ask what is a police officer doing when he is patrolling. The response would be something like "He isn't protecting anything" without anything of real substance to support it.

I have a question. A rhetorical one, then I'm done.

If you are a parent of a child, you are considered the guardian. Yet, when your child goes to school and you go off to work, you are no longer the protective guardian? You are 100% a failed parent then. Just like all the police officers that patrol the subways aren't protecting cause once I'm on the subway, they fail cause they didn't come with me onto the subway itself.

Bodyguards remain with a person, a police officer isn't your bodyguard.

You're missing the whole point of the discussion.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I understand.

I don't know you're background so I'm not assuming anything about you.

I've been around the military and law enforcement my whole life. I guess because I know there are evil people in this world it makes me think differently.

I have one question though. Even if _you've_ never had an incident in your life how can you be so certain that nothing can happen to you or your family? I just can't fathom that kind of thinking.

I guess normally I don't let fears of what ifs rule me. Nothing wrong with being prepared for what ifs so I am not bagging on that idea...I just don't let it rule me as others might. If I did I would be a walking nervous turd always worrying about this or that. What if this or that happens, I gotta prepare and get this or that and so on and so on.

I think that is probably more shaped in what environment you live in. If I lived in an area that was bad I might change my opinion...if I had the money I would just change my location first but many people do not have financial means to just pick up and leave so that does not work for everyone.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Wow, I have never seen such failed logic. You ask what is a police officer doing when he is patrolling. The response would be something like "He isn't protecting anything" without anything of real substance to support it.

I have a question. A rhetorical one, then I'm done.

If you are a parent of a child, you are considered the guardian. Yet, when your child goes to school and you go off to work, you are no longer the protective guardian? You are 100% a failed parent then. Just like all the police officers that patrol the subways aren't protecting cause once I'm on the subway, they fail cause they didn't come with me onto the subway itself.

Bodyguards remain with a person, a police officer isn't your bodyguard.

You only fail as a parent if you don't teach your children how to respond in situations in which they're alone or without parental supervision.

This is our whole point. Police cannot always protect you when you need it. They aren't always in a position to prevent violence. In fact, they're seldom in a position to prevent violence. That's not a criticism against them; it's simply the way of the world. They will always be responders more than protectors -- hence the decision to own firearms.

 

[YosemiteSam]

You're missing the whole point of the discussion.

That the police job isn't to protect, which is completely and utterly an asinine statement.

 

[Doomsday101]

That the police job isn't to protect, which is completely and utterly an asinine statement.

If the act has already taken place how are they protecting you? You could say protecting the public by arresting people who are wanted by law enforcement or questioning those who look or acting suspicious

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

If the act has already taken place how are they protecting you? You could say protecting the public by arresting people who are wanted by law enforcement or questioning those who look or acting suspicious

I was thinking he said they were not a bodyguard so I just assumed he meant protect in the manner you are speaking since the motto protect and serve has been around for years. So I am not sure if this whole argument is just about semantics or if people are just in an arguing mood.

I would imagine the motto being protect and serve and If he uses that I imagine he is not saying they should serve us breakfast in bed because part of the motto is serve.

Although I could be wrong...it has never happened before but I guess it could happen.:laugh1:

 

[kapolani]

That the police job isn't to protect, which is completely and utterly an asinine statement.

I thought the point was the police can't be everywhere, all the time, protecting the citizens.

 

[Doomsday101]

I was thinking he said they were not a bodyguard so I just assumed he meant protect in the manner you are speaking since the motto protect and serve has been around for years. So I am not sure if this whole argument is just about semantics or if people are just in an arguing mood.

I would imagine the motto being protect and serve and If he uses that I imagine he is not saying they should serve us breakfast in bed because part of the motto is serve.

Although I could be wrong...it has never happened before but I guess it could happen.:laugh1:

In my town (sorry our town) they will serve Breakfast in bed and all of our cops will be real hotties with the little shorts and the tied top. People will look forward to being arrested. :laugh2:

But I disgress, it is semantics