Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

You guys should try Britain's gun control laws.

I love you.

This is not true. I can secure my weapons in a bed-side safe that opens with the swipe of a finger. The whole process takes a second and that second is all that stands between me arming myself when I hear a suspect noise in the house.

You're assuming the only weapon I have is bed-side. Without small children in the house I can leave weapons laying in all sorts of places, despite what you say about needing to secure them all. Fact is, regardless of where I am in the house, I could be close to a loaded weapon.

The over-arching truth to this all is if I had no weapons in the house I'd be less safe in the event of a home invasion than if I had one, because there is still the chance that I would be near that single weapon... and if I didn't have a weapon, well, I'd be a sitting duck at my aggressors mercy.

Even if you were to disarm an entire country gun violence wouldn't drop to zero because the people who are using the guns for malicious reasons are likely to be criminals, and criminals don't play by the same rules. I like using Washington DC as an example - they've had gun bans for decades now but there are still an outrageous number of gun-related crimes in the city. Why? Criminals don't follow the law. "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." I'm almost positive I'd never turn my gun on a person unless I'm truly threatened... so, until that day comes, my guns will sit idle and ready. Should I be disadvantaged when it comes to saving me or my families life just because you, or someone else thinks I might do harm to someone else without provocation?

Your argument leaves room for armed home invasions to happen and for that reason I'll continue to arm myself. By your own admission, they do happen. As for why would someone want to invade my home? Why not? Maybe they think I'm an easy target because they're hoping I don't have a gun? Maybe they've been stealing mail from my mailbox and found out I'm financially comfortable, although I don't live in the most up-scale community? Maybe someone I know mentioned something about all the toys I have in my house? inb4 "Malcom X sedz..."

The world is a scary place and it's full of scary people. Many of these people, for no apparent reason, can snap and have a gun poined at the back of your head without warning. They don't care about my life or the value I place on it... almost like I'm simply human filler to them. Forgive me if I appear weak to you, but when it comes to the world and the people in it, I'd rather arm myself and have a fighting chance rather than being the one staring down a barrel of a gun with no way to defend myself. Without my morbid fascination, I could be dead, my wife could be raped and my son could be gutted and used to transport drugs across the border. Yea, not likely... but, it could happen. Should either of us be faced with that day I'll be more prepared to defend myself than you would be... and I'm fine with that.

It says you're an idiot and you're automatically going to assume the worst of the Tea Party because you have some chip on your shoulder. Also, bigot/racist/xenophobe/"nice google"/etc.

But it's Ok for the President to refer to Republicans and his critics as enemies that need to be punished?

Both sides have their rhetoric and their mouth-pieces that say shit that not everyone agrees with. My problem is you only think the Right is guilty of this kind of shit...

To give eturnal some credit here, the biometric scanning bed safe is a responsible option if you must own a gun for that reason. Kudos for that certainly.

I didn't read your post before making my more long-winded and largely redundant response, lol.

I am very wary of biometric systems. I see them as a false certainty. Anyone really determined to hack them could in theory just do so at the hardware level, and their complexity means there's that much more that can go wrong. I personally am very conservative, and I think "trick" locks and such are the most effective way to secure sensitive items.

Are you always by your bed?
Are you always sleeping with one eye open?
Do you do a quick-draw whenever you hear a bird land on the roof?
Do you really think anyone who doesn't do this is living a more at-risk life?
Furthermore, your entire behavior is based on the assumption that you and your room are the object of this putative intruder. Why? Why would anyone make a point of engaging you?

The overwhelming majority of people don't do this and get by fine. If you're living a lifestyle that reflects outrageous fears that others aren't prone to, that's a sign there's something wrong with you.

"Aggressor"...why? Why would anyone commit aggression against YOU?

Moot argument. It works in practice. What we have doesn't.

"Why not"? Easy target for what? You really think someone might be stealing your mail? Why yours? How often do you even think that occurs?

Yes, if you live life as a slave to your fear, you are weak.

Don't you think owning a gun for protection against a home invasion...makes you more paranoid to home invasions? Thus you are quicker to draw out your weapon if you hear any noise in your house...including if it's your niece getting some ice cream or something? Sure your response will be that being trained to correctly and quickly identify the noise in your house is necessary in your scenario of owning the gun and using it for protection...but let's talk about the general gun owning population? Do you think everyone is qualified to make that split second decision?

Well obviously the quickest way past any electronic lock system is just to smash it and pry open the door ( assuming you have the tool for the job).

On all available evidence, Jared Lee Loughner is a mentally disturbed man who targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and anyone near her in Tucson on Saturday because she was prominent and they were tragically accessible. He joins Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley Jr. and many others whose derangement led them to horrible acts of violence. Whatever confused political motives he expressed seem merely to be part of the maelstrom of his mental sickness.

In a better world, no one would attempt to exploit his madness for political gain. We would instead focus on the contributions of Ms. Giffords, by all accounts a laudable public servant. We would celebrate the lives of the other victims, and we would praise the survivors who intervened to tackle Mr. Loughner and disarm him before he could kill others—like 74-year-old retiree Bill Badger, who was grazed in the head by a bullet before helping to restrain the shooter.

But the shooting news had barely hit the wires on Saturday before the media's instant psychoanalysis put the American body politic on the couch instead of Mr. Loughner. "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics," declared a story in the New York Times, which focused primarily on the tea party and Sarah Palin in the context of mass murder. The story even hauled in opposition to health-care reform.

Politico, the Beltway website, chimed in by quoting a "veteran Democratic operative" advising the White House "to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," just as "the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people" in 1995.

Shouldn't a publication insist that someone urging the exploitation of murder at least put his name on the record? The same goes for the anonymous Republican Senator quoted by Politico denouncing "town halls and cable TV and talk radio" in relation to Mr. Loughner.

Consider the kind of rhetoric that is being implicated as incendiary and beyond the pale. Mrs. Palin is being scored for having put contested Congressional seats such as Ms. Giffords's in cross hairs on her website before the last election. This is supposed to be an incitement to murder?

At least one left-wing site also put Ms. Giffords on such a "target" list because she is one of the Blue Dog Democrats who doesn't vote the party line. (Jubber Note: Would have been nice--though contrary to the purpose of the piece--to name the offender.) And yesterday right-wing websites were reprising this or that quote from Democrats and even President Obama invoking some martial or weapons metaphor to suggest they are as culpable. This is as offensive as the blame-Republican implications in the New York Times.

Judging from Mr. Loughner's own website, his mind was a mess of conspiracy theories, influenced by tracts like "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto." His main complaint about government seems to be that he believes it is trying to control American "grammar." Yet this becomes an excuse for the media to throw him in with the tea partiers as "anti-government."

Perhaps we will learn more as the investigation unfolds. But so far this case couldn't be more different than that of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer who was motivated by Islamist hatred of America. Yet it is notable that the press corps was more restrained in identifying Major Hasan's Islamist role models than in immediately stretching to link Mr. Loughner with American politicians who universally denounce such violence.

Ponder the implication of this. A deranged soul shoots a public figure and we are supposed to change our political discourse and rule certain people and opinions out of bounds based on whatever incoherent ramblings Mr. Loughner published on his website?

Every two years we hold elections so that sane Americans can make a judgment on the policies of President Obama, John Boehner, tea party candidates and so on. But even though the people have recently had their say, in a typically raucous but entirely nonviolent fashion, we are supposed to put that aside and assess what a murderer with a mental illness has to tell us about the state of American politics, government and our national dialogue.

This line of argument is itself an attack on democratic discourse, and it is amazing that it even needs to be rebutted. Taking such an argument seriously will only encourage more crazy people to believe they can trigger a national soul-searching if they shoot at a political target. We should denounce the murders and the murderer, rather than doing him the honor of suggesting that his violence flows in any explainable fashion from democratic debate.

President Obama does have an opportunity here, but it is not to link—"deftly" or otherwise—his political opponents to Mr. Loughner. This would only further poison and polarize our public debate. Mr. Obama can lift the level of public discourse by explaining the reality of Mr. Loughner's illness and calling out those on the right and left who want to blame the other side for murder. That would be a genuinely Presidential act of leadership, and it would have the added advantage of being honest about the murders in Tucson.

Also, what is Canada's gun laws...?

@Eturnal : I get what you are saying man. It makes sense in a paranoid sort of way. What if robots broke into your house to rob and kill you and your guns were useless? What if the guy that broke in was wearing a full suit of body armor?

There are a lot of assumptions that would have to occur for someone to get into the house that already has a regular alarm system that repeats directly to the police department in town. If they got passed that, were armed, broke into the house and wanted to steal my things, kill me, rape my fiancee and kill her...yes I am utterly defenseless.

Does that bother me? No.
Just like I do not drive down the road fearing for my life that someone will swerve from oncoming traffic into me and kill me.

I choose not to live my life in fear...or in other words...I choose not to live my life worrying and adjusting to things that MIGHT happen (less than .05% chance).

Is it really too hard to just say that putting crosshairs over congressional districts, repeated talk of "second amendment legislation", "death panels", and bringing loaded guns to opposing party's political rallies isn't a good idea and should be toned down a bit?