AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

Except that it never happened (http://www.redskinswarpath.com/locker-room/21645-ast-after-sean-taylor-gun-2.html#post398645).

I guess people just skip over posts.

Sounded a little too good to be true, for sure.

Seriously, folks - it's called Snopes, and, unlike guns, it saves lives:
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Home Invasion Thwarted by 11-Year-Old Girl (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp)

So one false story that gets passed around proves...?

I still don't quite understand the logic, "To combat the threat of guns, we need to give everyone guns." It's akin to the U.S. arguing in the Cold War, "to combat the threat of nuclear arms, we need to proliferate nukes." Gun-advocates view gun-control proponents as naive, but I'm not sure that people who believe 99% of people can handle guns are themselves entirely in touch with reality.

Both sides (I'm neither for nor against guns btw) seem to only consider their perspective when arguing their case. I guess that's logical, but there are countless stories as to why someone wants or does not want to own a gun. If you have a specific and personal reason for owning a gun then you should be able to own one. If guns make you uncomfortable then don't have one in your home. Right now the laws seem pretty fair for both sides.

If I had one opinion on the matter it would be guns should be used for home defense and recreation not to be carried around in public places.

So one false story that gets passed around proves...?

That it's a false story. The guns comment is (quite obviously) commentary.

F that someone comes into my house at night they are getting blasted. Even if they kill me they're going down with me. I didn't need ST to die to know that.

I still don't quite understand the logic, "To combat the threat of guns, we need to give everyone guns."


that's because that statement represents 2 extreme points of view.

#1 that guns themselves pose a threat to anything

#2 that everyone should have them.

Neither of these statements is remotely accurate, so if you put them together obviously it's going to sound absurd... there is no logic to that statement, and I find it difficult to believe anyone is arguing that.

Moving this to the parking lot since it's basically an off topic thread now

I have a gun, carry, and work with them. I think to get a gun out of fear just to have is stupid, however if you take the time to use it and educate yourself it can be a very useful tool in a terrible situation. You would be suprised to see how many people have thier own weapons turned on them, know what you are doing....

Good post, I agree.
I have a .45 next to bed, but I keep a bullet out of the chamber just to avoid accidental firings.
I firmly think all honest people should have a gun, if intruders were shot and killed every time they broke into a house, I guarantee the amount of break ins would decrease by a substantial margin. You should always protect yourself and your family, but learn / educate yourself on how to use it, and of course, go to a gun range and learn how to shoot it too. No point in having it if you're just going to shoot the wall. Practice makes perfect.

I'm not really an advocate for guns personally and unless I end up being some Dr. Making XXX,XXX+ amounts of money, I hope I'll never have a need for one. But I believe that when you live in a nice neighborhood or a well known person making a hell of a lot of money. You NEED a gun.

... Or a REALLY big bodyguard.

In the case of athletes I do advocate them carrying guns.