HOWMAR said:He certainly taught him a lesson by having a gun in the house.:rambo: :ermm:
Who me? They usually say it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. Hmm, if these two people didn't have a gun, I guess they would have had to strangle each other.Scandall said:Uh oh, Howmar. You're not one of those who are against a person's right to defend themself, their family and their property? Are you?
Scandall
HOWMAR said:Who me? They usually say it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. Hmm, if these two people didn't have a gun, I guess they would have had to strangle each other.
I don't know of anyone that is against a person's right to defend himself. What I'm against is giving a gun to any idiot that feels owning a gun will automatically protect them and their family. Without proper training (and I don't mean a one hour course), you might as well be giving a lit match to a monkey in a dynamite factory. There are way to many preventable deaths due to mishandling of firearms, both in the US and the DR.Scandall said:You're not one of those who are against a person's right to defend themself, their family and their property? Are you?
Larry said:This is a perfect example of how dangerous it is to have a gun in the house.
In the United States, I feel the only people who should have guns are law enforcement. Here in the DR, I can understand a civilain having one for protection. HOWEVER, if you are going to have one, you better make sure you know what you are doing and understand and respect the responsibility involved with it. Also, you better make sure that if the situation arises where you might have to use it (such as in this story) that you USE IT and have no qualms about doing so. Guns are not to be kept in the house to detain a burglar, they are to be kept in the house to shoot...and kill him.
I have an idea what I am talking about. In the United States I had a job where I was required to carry a gun for 10 yrs. If you are going to own a gun, you BETTER understand the responsibility involved.
My 2 cents
Larry
Not to mention that the most common recipient of a round from household firearm is the spouse in a domestic dispute. The next most common is a child. Followed by an intruder.Larry said:This is a perfect example of how dangerous it is to have a gun in the house.
In the United States, I feel the only people who should have guns are law enforcement. Here in the DR, I can understand a civilain having one for protection. HOWEVER, if you are going to have one, you better make sure you know what you are doing and understand and respect the responsibility involved with it. Also, you better make sure that if the situation arises where you might have to use it (such as in this story) that you USE IT and have no qualms about doing so. Guns are not to be kept in the house to detain a burglar, they are to be kept in the house to shoot...and kill him.
I have an idea what I am talking about. In the United States I had a job where I was required to carry a gun for 10 yrs. If you are going to own a gun, you BETTER understand the responsibility involved.
My 2 cents
Larry
HOWMAR said:Not to mention that the most common recipient of a round from household firearm is the spouse in a domestic dispute. The next most common is a child. Followed by an intruder.
SKY said:http://dr1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38693&highlight=machete
How would this guy have done with no gun????
A child can die in a pool, can die crossing the street or can be struck by lightning. Having a gun in the house just ads to the possibilities.Scandall said:Hmmm. Yes. But let's put it in perspective. And this comes from a book I just finished...Freakonomics. Interesting read.
Imagine you are a parent and your child has two options on a Saturday afternoon. 1) Visit a friend's house where there is a swimming pool or 2) Visit a friend's house where you know there is a gun in the house.
Most parents would choose the pool. But statistically the child is 100 times more likely to be involved in a serious accident there than the house with the gun. But pool accidents are not very sexy on the evening news.
Obviously, there are other factors that come into play. But I would highly recommend the book if anyoine is interested in economics, statistics etc.
Disagree if you wish.
Scandall
Larry said:I have an idea what I am talking about. In the United States I had a job where I was required to carry a gun for 10 yrs. If you are going to own a gun, you BETTER understand the responsibility involved.
Larry
Larry said:A child can die in a pool, can die crossing the street or can be struck by lightning. Having a gun in the house just ads to the possibilities.
Larry
heldengebroed said:If my memory is correct only 3 percent off trained soldiers kill in action.
Johan
That's why we started to "drown-proof" the kids when they were 6 months old. We new they couldn't swim yet, but hoped that bobbing in the water the extra few minutes would make a difference if the worst happened. I haven't heard of making a kid "bullet-proof".Scandall said:Hmmm. Yes. But let's put it in perspective. And this comes from a book I just finished...Freakonomics. Interesting read.
Imagine you are a parent and your child has two options on a Saturday afternoon. 1) Visit a friend's house where there is a swimming pool or 2) Visit a friend's house where you know there is a gun in the house.
Most parents would choose the pool. But statistically the child is 100 times more likely to be involved in a serious accident there than the house with the gun. But pool accidents are not very sexy on the evening news.
Obviously, there are other factors that come into play. But I would highly recommend the book if anyoine is interested in economics, statistics etc.
Disagree if you wish.
Scandall