21 year old kills home invader, 2 others run away, arrested.

If he hadn't been armed he would have had to wait for the police to arrive and would possibly be dead. This is why the right to own a gun is so important. God bless the great state of Texas. 

http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-year-old-protects-family-kills-suspect-during-home-invasion-in-NW-Harris-County-192475271.html

That's quite an oversimplification of things.  I do support the right to own firearms, but this is a little ridiculous. 

Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.chessmaster1989

Oh wow that's near me.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.mingmao3046

Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.chessmaster1989

This demonstrates how important the right to bear arms is to our safety and independence. There should be no restrictions on personal security. There should be no regulations.Laihendi

If only the invaders had guns then this would have never happened.

....wait.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.Ace6301

He's partly right though - here in the major cities of Australia, almost nobody owns guns, no major stores sell guns, and most people will probably live their lives never seeing a gun (outside of those in police holsters). You might technically be able to own them - I mean, I'd assume that farmers have guns to put down their cattle and whatnot,  but there's certainly no culture of needing a gun to protect yourself. 

Come to think of it, we don't even have a separate crime of 'home invasion' down here. It simply isn't a thing. Sometimes burglars beat people up, sometimes burglars get beaten up (which typically makes funny news, especially when they get dropped by elderly ladies), but for the most part they seem to just target empty houses.

Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.chessmaster1989

This demonstrates how important the right to bear arms is to our safety and independence. There should be no restrictions on personal security. There should be no regulations.Laihendi

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.mattbbpl

This demonstrates how important the right to bear arms is to our safety and independence. There should be no restrictions on personal security. There should be no regulations.Laihendi

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.mingmao3046

Different cultures; different needs.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] seems like all the euro's and australians want to do just that. they always ramble on about how great their gun free society isPlaneforger

He's partly right though - here in the major cities of Australia, almost nobody owns guns, no major stores sell guns, and most people will probably live their lives never seeing a gun (outside of those in police holsters). You might technically be able to own them - I mean, I'd assume that farmers have guns to put down their cattle and whatnot,  but there's certainly no culture of needing a gun to protect yourself. 

Come to think of it, we don't even have a separate crime of 'home invasion' down here. It simply isn't a thing. Sometimes burglars beat people up, sometimes burglars get beaten up (which typically makes funny news, especially when they get dropped by elderly ladies), but for the most part they seem to just target empty houses.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Ok, good thing nobody's proposing eliminating gun ownership rights completely.mattbbpl

This demonstrates how important the right to bear arms is to our safety and independence. There should be no restrictions on personal security. There should be no regulations.Laihendi

When you establish the principle that the government determines what you can and cannot arm yourself with, there is nothing stopping them from disarming the entire country. It is only a matter of time.Laihendi

They're way ahead of you. You don't see any civilians being able to own tanks and heavy artilleries.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]When you establish the principle that the government determines what you can and cannot arm yourself with, there is nothing stopping them from disarming the entire country. It is only a matter of time.one_plum

They're way ahead of you. You don't see any civilians being able to own tanks and heavy artilleries.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

They're way ahead of you. You don't see any civilians being able to own tanks and heavy artilleries.

Laihendi

So what are you saying exactly? No restriction whatsoever?

That is just proving my point. The principal has already been established that the government can arbitrarily restrict weapon ownership, and so gun regulation has become increasingly strict since FDR.Laihendi

It's not arbitrary to restrict access to some weapon systems. For instance, I don't want you to have access to a nuke or a tank.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is just proving my point. The principal has already been established that the government can arbitrarily restrict weapon ownership, and so gun regulation has become increasingly strict since FDR.airshocker

It's not arbitrary to restrict access to some weapon systems. For instance, I don't want you to have access to a nuke or a tank.

I am afraid for lai to have any weapon dave123321

With further thought, I concur.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is just proving my point. The principal has already been established that the government can arbitrarily restrict weapon ownership, and so gun regulation has become increasingly strict since FDR.airshocker

It's not arbitrary to restrict access to some weapon systems. For instance, I don't want you to have access to a nuke or a tank.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is just proving my point. The principal has already been established that the government can arbitrarily restrict weapon ownership, and so gun regulation has become increasingly strict since FDR.Laihendi

It's not arbitrary to restrict access to some weapon systems. For instance, I don't want you to have access to a nuke or a tank.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

They're way ahead of you. You don't see any civilians being able to own tanks and heavy artilleries.

one_plum

So what are you saying exactly? No restriction whatsoever?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

It's not arbitrary to restrict access to some weapon systems. For instance, I don't want you to have access to a nuke or a tank.

dave123321

Only a very wealthy person can afford those kinds of weapons, and in a free society only very responsible people would be wealthy enough to afford them. If you are rich enough to buy a nuclear bomb and you actually have a reason to buy one (to protect your assets, for example) then you should be allowed to. Obviously that would happen only in extreme circumstances but in principle it should be allowed. In practice it would be a very rare thing.Laihendi

No.

[wish I had your minddave123321

No you don't. Insanity isn't something to be desired,

[QUOTE="dave123321"][wish I had your mindairshocker

No you don't. Insanity isn't something to be desired,

Maybe that makes me insanedave123321

Possibly.

at least you're taking a break from topics complaining about women.

lai, if the world was coming to an end and you had to save 10 GS users, who would you choose and why?dave123321

This should be excellent.

at least you're taking a break from topics complaining about women.

MakeMeaSammitch

Hey Dave, I ended up reheating pulled pork. Had some Famous Dave's BBQ(no pun intended) sauce along with it. Was amazing.

am jealous :(dave123321

Should be. You did give me a good idea for a thread later, though.

lai, if the world was coming to an end and you had to save 10 GS users, who would you choose and why?dave123321

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Only a very wealthy person can afford those kinds of weapons, and in a free society only very responsible people would be wealthy enough to afford them. If you are rich enough to buy a nuclear bomb and you actually have a reason to buy one (to protect your assets, for example) then you should be allowed to. Obviously that would happen only in extreme circumstances but in principle it should be allowed. In practice it would be a very rare thing.Laihendi

This demonstrates how important the right to bear arms is to our safety and independence. There should be no restrictions on personal security. There should be no regulations.Laihendi