THIS is why people need guns for self defense

Post Reply New Topic

The law doesn't know that they were knocked out at the time.

I think I'd rather have a gun because don't you need to get a lot closer with a tazer? Also I'm scared of electricity.

I'd just mostly want it for if someone broke in my home to defend myself or hope they would see me pointing it at them and run away.

The range is roughly 15 feet.

...And your point is?

Still too close for comfort. A knife wielding maniac can cover a distance of 20 feet faster than you can pull a gun out.

My point was that if someone tries to rob or otherwise hurt you, beating the crap out of them is your right as a human being regardless of what the law says.

I agree that 15 feet is a bit short, but if you consider a situation within a house, 15 - 20 feet will be the rough distance you'll face a potential intruder at. It's the reason why I've always advocated short barreled shotguns as the ultimate home defense weapon, since at 15 - 20 feet a shotgun of the right caliber with the right type of ammo will turn an intruder to mincemeat.

Pepper spray to the face is very effective. If you knew what it felt like, you'd understand why.

Hell yeah, if everyone got guns, the Iraqi mum would just be killed instead of having to suffer the pain of getting beaten.

Yeah let's see if you still have the nerve to insist on your right to act the way you want to once you're fresh meat behind bars . You were bemoaning the Castle Doctrine in another thread and yet here you are showing a complete disregard for self-defense laws. I think you're just projecting. Because you show such disregard for self-defense laws, it makes you think everyone else will show the same disregard towards Castle Doctrine. There's no room for juvenile self-righteous BS in the event of something as serious as having to defend yourself. Once he's incapacitated, your business with him is done. But it seems like you're more concerned with eliminating threats to your ego than eliminating actual threats.

The latter would be the only option for me. I'd have to reload after every shot with a taser and that's just too sketchy for me. Plus I might have to shoot through obstructions like stair pillars so bullets are a must.

I don't know about you but if I was a woman I'd much rather shoot it out than duke it out with another man.

Umm, this is disturbing.

Killing someone who has robbed you is not self defense, it is murder. I find it disturbing that you believe it is your right to "beat the crap out of someone" who has robbed you.

You can only fire at someone if you believe your life is in imminent danger. Even policeman are expected to follow this code of conduct. The same should hold true for civilians.

I have no problem with firearms ownership and use. But I have a great problem with irresponsible firearms possession.

So the political question for me is, "What is the proper role of government in curbing the latter, while minimally restricting the former?" I don't disagree with the view that holds that regulation isn't going to do the job--but I do believe that regulation must be in place in order to provide government with the tools necessary to pursue the legitimate agenda of finding the line that isolates unacceptable firearms possession and use.

But even that is only a fraction of the problem. The fare greater element is culture. As an outsider looking into the United States, I see a culture of irresponsibility developing in which the firearm and lethal force is not the last resort, but rather the first option. And it seems to me that the legal framework is making the environment ever more open to that culture.

I contrast that with the culture in my own country. We have a high level of firearms ownership here, and our rate of accidental firearms deaths demonstrates a very strong correlation between firearms ownership and accident. Intuitively, it seems that we have comparable levels of responsible behaviour when it comes to the carriage, care and storage of our firearms.

But the rates of death for intentional use (whether homicide or suicide) tell a very different tale, with US rates disproportionately higher than Canadian rates--and the gap is widening. I don't think that this has anything to do with the United States being a less peaceful, less secure or less law-abiding place. But I think it has a great deal to do with the romanticism of the gun and the willingness of people to reach for it impulsively.

Can government change that? Not directly, no. But I think that it's high time that the "gun control" lobby started moving its sights away from a losing battle against the second amendment towards creating a paradigm shift in cultural thinking.

Considering that the person you're responding to believes it's perfectly justified to discriminate against the disabled in spite of what his own country's Constitution says, does that really come as a shock to you? (Pun not intended.)

Visagrunt wrote:

We do have regulation and quite a lot of it at all levels. I don’t know where this prevailing notion comes from that just anyone can walk in to any store and buy a “machine-gun” as if it were a bag of pretzels and do whatever they want with it. It aint that way, trust me.
Show me some examples of where gun regulation can be directly attributed to saving lives.
Irresponsibility is irresponsibility and no amount of regulating inanimate mechanical devices is going to help it.


Depending on the situation at hand, sometimes lethal force is the first option by necessity. It’s a judgment call and not one that can be pre-arranged.
Myself, I carry a can of pepper spray in addition to a pistol. If practical, I’ll give someone a shot of pepper spray in the eyes and maybe avoid having to shoot them. Legally it’s much preferable to pepper someone than to shoot them. But if I find myself in more of a time critical scenario I’m going straight for the pistol.
The idea is NOT letting a threat close enough to grapple with or stab me and subsequently getting control of my gun. If they produce a gun my goal will be to neutralize them with deadly force without further ado..
This is where that "stand your ground" thingy comes into play; you can't always retreat to safety.



The “gun control” lobby isn’t interested in curbing anything but private gun ownership.
Let’s look at the two premier gun/anti-gun organizations in the US, the NRA and The Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc. or HCI).
Yes, the NRA is an activist group / lobby but they provide programs and training to prevent firearm related injury, death, and misuse.
Here’s some of the programs they sponsor or directly offer:
Safety training programs for kids pre-school and up, obviously tailored to each age group.
Hunter safety training which is pre-requisite for obtaining a hunting license in all states.
Pre-requisite training for CCW applicants.
Firearms training for law enforcement agencies.
Programs tailored to women shooters and hunters.
etc….

The Brady Campaign is nothing more than an activist group. I just now looked at their website and saw what I knew I would; they are using Trayvon Martin as a poster boy for their agenda and George Zimmerman, of course, as an example of an NRA gun owner. Pretty low but it's to be expected of them.
They have a victim’s advocacy program but nothing meaningful to prevent anyone from becoming victims.
They screech about campus shootings but propose nothing meaningful to actually stop them.
They rattle on about “sensible gun laws” but when those laws don’t fix the problem, and they never do, they beat the drum for more “sensible gun laws” and on down that slippery slope.
For every one life they may have inadvertently saved they’ve probably been responsible for ten or more deaths.

What about constitutional carry Raptor? In some states if you're an American citizen then yes you can go out and buy a gun and carry it, no questions. Machine gun maybe not (need a class III license don't you?) but a pistol can still do a lot of damage in a short period of time.

I fully support constitutional carry even though my current state of residence doesn’t have it. Here it’s by CCW permit only.
What about a pistol doing a lot of damage in a short period of time? A pistol or a 105mm howitzer for that matter doesn’t do anything; it is used by a person to do things with.
My point about machineguns, using the term loosely, is the perception by some of the more simple minded that anyone can get one and they are easy to get. Any firearm for that matter……

I’m not planning on pissing away too much weekend time on this thread or any other for that matter.
It gets ridiculous after a while of the same thing over and over……

A person can do a lot of damage with a pistol in a short period of time then.


The reason I'm not one for constitutional carry is simple. Would you trust every single person you've ever met in your life to have a loaded gun on them?

The rationale is that in order to get a CCW you have to pass the same level of background check that you do to buy a gun in the first place, ergo anyone purchasing a gun has already proven their legal eligibility carry one. Some states do have training requirements included in their CCW application process, though I believe the research that have been done has not show any conclusive benefit vs states that simply require a background check.