What armed self defense really looks like.

here's one for him.......................
Poll: Record number of Americans think guns make homes safer



According to a new Gallup poll, the number of Americans who think having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be has nearly doubled since 2000.

Sixty-three percent, or about six in ten Americans, believe guns in homes make them safer. In 2000, only about three in ten (35 percent) Americans thought so.

Republicans were much more likely than their Democratic counterparts to favor gun ownership. "About half of Democrats say having a gun makes a home a more dangerous place to be," the study revealed. "Republicans (81 percent)," it went on "were about twice as likely as Democrats (41 percent) to believe having a gun improves home safety."
- -
http://theweek.com/article/index/27...ber-of-americans-thinks-guns-make-homes-safer

 

Another responsible gun owner.
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/...-At-Gunpoint--284371061.html?device=phone&c=y

 

Wait, so he was able to push the guy outside and the guy waited there while they went and got the gun?
In what way did the gun actually contribute?

 

I suppose he could have held the high guy down and wailed on him for a while or wait to see if the high guy pulled a knife out or bit him and gave him a disease. He used the gun to protect his family until police arrived. He did it responsibly and didn't hurt anybody. Would you rather he shot him? Even if it was legal, deadly force isn't always necessary.

 

Clearly, he didn't have a problem manhandling the guy - since he's already done that in the doorway.
Also, the article indicates the guy just stood there while the gun was fetched - so apparently there was really no difference once a gun was present.

 

Are there people that are SO ANTI GUN that they are still pretending that a gun isnt a FANTASTIC self defense weapon?

 

I totally agree it's a great self defense weapon. I also acknowledge it's a good offense weapon, and that there would be less need for self defense weapons if we made it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves.

 

There would be less drunk driving if we make it more difficult for drunks to buy alcohol.
There would be less obesity if we make it more difficult for fat people to buy food.
There would be less diabetes if we make it more difficult for children to buy sodas.
There would be less cancer if we make it more difficult for chain smokers to buy cigarettes.

Do all of that and then you might have the beginnings of an argument.

 

It is much harder for an individual to acquire the physical requirements to train, and then maintain, unarmed combat tactics. It is really easy for a person to acquire a pistol or long gun and then employ it in a defensive stance. To be fair, any tool that can be used for defense can be used for offense so that argument is a catch-22 for both sides. If you prevent little old ladies from acquiring pistols for self defence because if the 1% of the population that will prey on the little old lady, have you made society better?

Putting a value judgement on anyone's life is poor taste. It has been stated several times on this board the criminals get guns from stealing them from others. I believe this is true along with straw purchases and black market purchases. The current supply of guns, if wide spreading and complete gun control were enacted today, so the only guns that would be affected would be all the ones in the future. By placing restrictions on who and when an individual can purchase or posses a weapon, you are essentially telling them their life is not worth as much as it was before a certain date because the government told them they can't protect it with what they want.

Freedom is more than bring able to drink your latte in peace, or being able to write posts on a message board. Freedom and liberty extend to every aspect of our lives and firearm ownership is just one, but one of the most important ones IMO.

 

Well the CDC, FBI, and DOJ say that there isnt a law in existence that makes it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves. When are you going to wake up, grow up, and accept reality?????

 

Are you saying that you fight against programs that already exist to keep drivers from drinking, fight obesity, provide nutritional information, limit the age of smokers (and increase taxes on smokes)?

Do all of that and you might not be seen as a hypocrite.

 

Agreed, the fact that "It is really easy for a person to acquire a pistol or long gun and then employ it in a defensive stance" also means "it is really easy for a person to acquire a pistol or long gun and then employ it in an offensive stance". Since that works both ways, it's not a productive point of discussion.

If you make guns easier for criminals to obtain, doesn't this increase the potential threat to those little old ladies?
If you prevent 13 year olds from being able to rob adults at gunpoint, have you made society better?

So any system that could prevent straw purchases and/or increase safe storage (to reduce the ability of guns to get stolen), there would be fewer guns in criminal hands (especially since that's how guns get into the black market as well).

Putting process in place that will reduce the number of armed criminals over time is better than keeping a status quo that enables criminals to easily obtain firearms.

If lawful citizens have no difficulty passing a background check and purchasing from a licensed dealer, how would a background check for any other sale suddenly impede them from protecting themselves (from a decreasing number of armed criminals) however they want?

I disagree that firearm ownership is more important than any other liberty. Even if it was, gun control is not the same thing as a ban. Banning guns is giving up on any form of gun control.

 

My point is that we don't need a nanny state telling us what to do. We are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for our own actions and they will not take responsibility for protecting us. They will show up after the crime to take notes. We don't need government telling us to wear our seatbelts or limit the size of our sodas. We tried prohibition and that didn't work out well. Politicians don't have the guts to ban cigarettes. They see the public as "cash cows" and everything revolves around how they get money or power over us.

 

That's because existing laws are intentionally made unenforceable. This is largely due to political donations from the countries largest lobby - tantamount to purchasing legislative action.
For example, it is illegal to perform a straw purchase. In a nutshell, this means it is illegal to buy a firearm for the purpose of selling it to someone who cannot purchase one lawfully. Of course, the fact that law enforcement can't prove who purchased a particular firearm, and private sellers aren't obligated to know whether buyers are criminals (giving them plausible deniability) - makes the law against straw purchases pointless because they're unenforceable.

 

Your thinking seems to begin at the point where a crime is occurring, and how to respond to it.
I am talking about how to reduce the liklihood of a crime occurring in the first place, by limiting the ability of criminals to obtain tools that facilitate the commission of crimes.

I see no value in any supplementary fearmongering about the motives of people elected by the public, particularly as their reinstatment should rely on them successfully providing for the interests of their constituents.

 

10 year prison sentence and its not a deterrent. How about mag capacity laws that dont do anything? Carrying laws that dont do anything? Its a felony for a felon to possess a firearm, guess how often that law gets ignored!!!!!!

Face reality, you cant regulate human behavior. Its pointless and unethical to keep ramming down gun laws that just negatively affect the law abiding. Leave us alone, I dont think that is much to ask.

 

You advocate for unenforceble laws too. Universal background checks are unenforceble. Our congress admits this and that's why it was defeated last year in the senate. It was recognized that registration would have to be implemented to enforce background checks on 2nd hand gun transfers.

 

Correct. If there's no chance of getting caught, the punishment is not a deterrent.

Guess who enables them to obtain weapons by defending the status quo that makes it easy for them!!!!!!!

I don't think it's too much to ask you to honestly answer one question: How do background checks in place at licensed dealers now negatively affect the law abiding?

As for being unable to regulate human behavior, I guess there's no point in having any laws at all then. Right?

 

Your thinking starts way before mine. You want the government to protect us from ourselves and others. I want the right to protect myself. Criminals don't obey laws that control the law abiding. I prefer to depend on myself. You can call it "fearmongering", but I don't care what other people think. I like my chances being allowed to protect myself. It's as simple as that and the 2A agrees with me.

 

So background checks won't work unless there is registration...? Ok, then I guess treating firearms the way we treat cars makes sense.

 

Unlike firearms, There is no federal law prohibiting keeping records of cars.

 

This is old ground that you seem to ignore:
Firearms start of in the hands of the law abiding (manufacturers). This means that, at some point, criminals obtain these weapons from the law abiding. If the law abiding would stop selling guns to criminals, it would be much more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. So, in order to impact criminals, you have to get law abiding citizens (who obey the law) to stop selling guns to criminals. This can only happen if they KNOW who is a criminal and who isn't. They can only have this knowledge if a background check is done. In other words, it's possible to impact the number of weapons falling into criminal hands (even though they don't follow the law) without getting rid of guns for lawful citizens.

How you choose to interpret the 2A has nothing to do with reducing the number of guns in the hands of criminals, unless you believe the 2A supports the right of criminals to be armed.

 

Really? You mean the government has registration details of cars that allow people to move freely however they please, and mass confiscation of law-abiding citizens' cars hasn't taken place?! That's surprising...

 

This is old ground that I still defend. My rights are not redefined by the actions of criminals. If we outlawed and confiscated every gun in America, criminals would have guns imported through Mexico or smuggled in from some other country. You can't take my rights away because other people don't obey the law. My right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and cannot be taken away unless it is proven that I individually cannot be trusted with that right using due process.

I'd be good with mandating background checks for gun sales, as long as the gun is not mentioned in background check. Anybody with a CHL, FOID, or military ID would be exempt, since their ID is proof of background check. As checks are done now, UBC would become universal gun registration. Criminals won't do background checks anyway. Why should we register our guns through background checks? Liberals would never agree to this because they want to control gun owners.

 

http://junkyarddog911.blogspot.com/2015/01/concealed-carry-customer-draws-weapon.html