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

Why indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

Why indeed.

 

Those who are fortunate enough to never be raped do anyway.



Oh! Dear! You have been reading the NRA again haven't you??

That research was debunked YEARS ago[/QUOTE]

 

The progressives just want to make the wealth transfer simpler. The thief is only trying to feed their family, if its abducting your child well maybe they cant have children, rape... cant get a root. Either way you have something the poor souls need to survive, its the duty of the haves to hand over to the have nots.

 

King hit?

 

Haymaker....I had to look it up.

 

The questions is so simple:

You do not have a gun.
Someone with a gun breaks in.

What do you do?

Why is it so difficult to do?

You can answer the question a gun ban. Just modify it ti the above, you don't have a gun. What do you do for the ten minutes for the police to arrive?

So simple.

 

Bowerbird already answered that question. She would use a judo throw to toss a small Asian woman at the assailant.

 

In retrospect, French Toast seems more appropriate than ordinary toast. It is likely there will be a great deal of gore on my toaster by the time I am done beating him to death with it.

And it probably won't work either.

 

Yes, if you want to murder the English language that way, I suppose i did say that.

I give up, you are irrational and dishonest. I'm done.

 

More than a haymaker. Throwing a punch (often from behind) when the victim doesn't expect it, taking the victim completely by surprise. A cowardly act.

 

But what if it is a smart criminal, not an ignorant one.

Gun's, self defense, etc..cannot protect against a surprise attack, how can one defend what they don't see ? Criminals are more likely to be cowardly to do this, if they were smart which many are becoming unfortunately.

Promoting violent self defense only makes criminals adapt, and be smarter. So it is best to submit to a criminal, until Government legally redistributes wealth to them so they don't have to rob for food and clothes any longer.

That is why the police always say never fight back during a robbery, the likely hood of getting hurt increases

 

Ahh, a sucker punch.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Y6iHb2Mj4

Check it out.

 

Yep, sucker punched him. Even though it wasn't technically a "punch", people here would say he got sucker punched. If he had done that from behind it would be called a rabbit punch, or a Jap punch for the non-PC crowd.

What is the connection with the name though, king hit? Any rhyme or reason there?

 

Dunno,, Australian slang which originated in the 1920s.

 

In America, a king hit is a really big toke off of a bong.









Not really, but it sounded good, no? lol

 

Now we're getting somewhere...French toast is eminently practical. That is unless you also chucked the frying pan at him when the toaster bounced off his noggin.....

- - - Updated - - -

Got smart dogs, will only accept food from my hands...

 

Do they drink water out of your hands too?

 

They do now

 

Bwa ha ha ha! Even Wiki talks about the problems with Kleck's "study"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

As for intellectual honesty - well who consistently posts links to research and who just wafts myths about?

 

Step one: A guy with a gun walks into your house
Step two: Oh wait, the guy doesn't actually have a gun because people can't easily buy guns anymore, there's no longer an easy gun supply - case in point, Australia
Step two: You whack the guy on the head with a heavy object, or call the police

 

Nonsense.

 

If transfering wealth was as easy as buying lobbies and congressmen like the conservatives do, we'd go that route. But, ya see, we don't have the wealth to run to a lobby to fight the theft.

 

Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

What’s the upshot?

1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.

2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy.

3. Many gun owners (I am not one, but I know plenty) focus not on statistical probabilities, but on a worst-case scenario: They’re in trouble, and they want a fighting chance.

4. DGU does not answer any questions in this debate, but it’s a factor that deserves attention.

-http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

 

The proposals to use karate or judo, improvise a weapon, or just lie down and take it are not realistic, nor acceptable.

Anyone who has experienced a worst-case and then does not understand that it can happen, nor prepare lest it happen again is to me anyway, just not in their right mind.

i notice our leading anti-gunner here is reluctant to admit there is nobody talking as she claims about "only chance" as a general concept of gun ownership..

nor with the fact that, as in my experience there are are particular circumstances, where there would be no other feasible means of defense in a very life threatening situation.

Unless, say, i went bicycling with a samurai sword.

Id still, as would anyone with a lick of sense, prefer the smith and wesson.