Anti-Gun People: What is the proper course of action if you are attacked?

Six pages and no answer.

Amusing.

 

If someone wanted jewelry, money, etc, I'd far rather have them take it
than face the consequences of shooting someone.

You can sit and let them loot your house; may for you be the best plan.
In my case, tho,,"whatever they want" includes something I'm not willing to have taken.

You cannot appease someone who is set to commit a violent sexual assault.

And you simply cant tell someone who has survived such an attack that being unarmed or saying "no", or submitting the next time is some sort of good idea.

Id rather die fighting than submit. You dont know what "surviving" such an attack means. You see the difference?

 

My wallet and watch are not worth my death or even injury. Very easily replaced.

 

Guns are the great equalizer if you're threatened and overmatched.

They can be a life saver for your family and property during times of crisis and emergency.

See L.A. riots and Katrina looting.

I see them as necessary against government criminals as much as street thugs, as the liberals would like nothing better than a dis-armed citizenry.

Not goona happen.

 

Can you show my a single bill that is trying to ban all guns that has any support?

You can't... then your argument is ridiculous...

If you have to make stuff up like "suppose all guns are banned", then you have no argument.

 

It's called a hypothetical, genius.

 

First thing first, I would beg him not to kill me.
I would pee my pants trying to convince him that I'm scared, really really really scared.
Second, I tell him I'm on foodstamp and I have nothing is valuable. I would show him my EBT card
Third, if he still does not believe, I would (*)(*)(*)(*) my pants and hopefully that stink smell would make him to go away.

 

At the moment, the king hit is one of the commonest forms of assult in Australia. People have been hospitalised even killed over the last few years.

 

I guess then hypothetically, I would then pull out my light saber and cut his arm off after deflecting all his bullets with several cool spin moves.

 

In answer to the OP-some here, by choice, seem inclined to rely on the "goodwill" of the criminal. Submit and embrace your victimhood, because it is truly in your best interest to place blind faith in someone you have just "met." Others, by choice, feel they are more than a match for any adversary determined to impose their will/desire, perhaps even preplanning the strike (but hey, everybody knows that only the good guys and women always win).

Most recently in America, in direct opposition to school district's ZERO TOLERANCE policy, at select schools, students and staff are being trained (in part) to attack the maniacal gunman with what's at hand, to flee and evade rather than embrace victimhood and the submit to the fate chosen by the criminal. Considering the force a criminal gunman wields it makes me wonder why a firearm isn't an option.

A few questions, whose interest is best served in limiting the defensive tools a crime victim can have on/at hand? Who has the authority to make that self-defense choice for the crime victim and why?

 

They're most likely living in gated communities in the nice suburbs miles away from the slum. You learn early to not be disarmed living there... always be mobile and carry a bigger weapon if you plan on living without guns. Once you're caught like I was multiple times in 3:1 or more situations you'll get a few broken bones for nothing more than their amusement. Criminals don't always go solo on someone and at the same time you better hope if they come in numbers you're a "Legendary" fighter who can take on multiple opponents wielding hand to hand weapons from all sides of you. Ever felt being hit with a chain before across your backside? Or how about someone throwing a glass bottle at you? It's a wonderful experience being out manned and with no tool in sight to equalize the power they have.

While at the same time hopelessness drags over you because they have your cornered in a small space and your only tool is a 3ft pole... The first couple of swings have to matter or you're done.

 

The Ted Nugent defence has it's flaws...

 

Every time I hear someone talking about how civilians don't need guns I think the same thing, yuppy in a gated community living a jaded life since the day they were born.

 

And you would kindly offer them your wife and daughter also.

Some people just don,t get it.

 

That's all it could be... People who have never experienced a situation where their life was in the hands of someone else's waiting to be abused by them to whatever sick pleasure they desired. Living in the "clique" or roaming with larger numbers... or probably the only fight they had was a typical school yard fight that lasted a minute. They never experienced being chased six blocks across your neighborhood, climbing over barbed wire fences and squeezing yourself under fences to escape being brutalized.

 

If I was by myself? Run... Don't stop running and don't wait to see the criminal's intent for me.

If I had a family? I don't even want to answer it..

 

Uh, OK. First you set up a ridiculous narrative about some victimized young girl breaking into my house just to steal a CD. THEN when I say that I could handle that without a gun, you just continue with your fantasy, saying "I see a figure and fire", as if I wouldn't check my target, you know, to see if maybe it was someone I knew or something. Your whole scenario is retarded, intentionaly designed to get a victimized youth killed, and dependant on a homeowner firing at someone without checking to see who it is, or saying anything. If you have to reach that far to come up with a situation in which your worldview works, then your worldview is crap.

 

Bingo!!!

There it is again deciding that you are helpless if you are smaller than your opponent

If a woman has not told you yet she one day will "Size does not always matter"

 

And somehow multiple rape with burglary is a rare event - some people just don't get it

You are preparing yourselves for something that is unlikely

Yes there are those who do break into houses to rape - but they are the exception MOST rapes are someone you know

 

I would use all of the knives, hammers, and swimming pools that gun proponents promised will kill more people than guns.

 

They are likely talking about semi-auto rifles kill less than what you mention. I personally would suggest running as fast as you can either straight for the attacker if you believe you can take him. Or away with a zig-zag motion if you don't. I own many firearms but do not carry them for self-defense.

 

The only acceptable solution is violence equal to or greater than the aggressor. If he breaks in my house and I am unarmed, everything that can be thrown that will harm him is fair game.

While distracted by the sudden cloud of debris I shall grab my toaster and beat him to death with it.

Afterwards, if my toaster still works, I will plug it in and have some toast.

If he comes in with the mind of sexual assault he shall be disemboweled, skinned, neutered, and raped by the large neighborhood canine - and in that order.

 

God and goddess, this is like talking to my cats! Again: You need to stop putting words in my mouth. It is dishonest. Stop it, NOW!

You have not answered my question...and you won't, because you CAN'T.

 

Nah! Nail gun, large headed nail - affix testicles to wall - still attached to male optional

 

I am not putting words in your mouth so maybe you need to make yourself clearer about how you are NOT defenceless without a gun