What armed self defense really looks like.

Where I live in Western Mass....which is an absolutely beautiful place.....where there is a relatively large city with some gang violence....they know not to go to a town right next door with a Heavily Armed American Citizenship.

We have this joke we always say....What is the worlds longest bridge?

It is the $#@&^%$#!@# Bridge as it goes from %$#@#&% all the way across the ocean to %$#@#@$$! LOL!!

I also at one time had this African American Member of my Team who I hand picked and he told me...."I have no idea why some White People are afraid of Blacks? When everyone knows the Craziest Mother F#$@&% in the WORLD is a White Male with a High Powered Rifle! LOL!!!

You know....He is RIGHT!!!

AboveAlpha

 

really....maybe he should have visited the slums in Detroit, New York or mebbe Chicago............I think it's more about demographics as opposed to racism. (That was the gist of your statement). The most dangerous people there are the fricking gangbangers. That it's blame it all on the white folks because a brother can't be racist, can he?

 

Guns are a great dissuasive tool for shop owners and generally all personnel exposed to the risk of robbery or violence, but what happens if robbers had guns too? That's the problem imho, gun sellers don't know if their customer is a robber or a shop owner, so having no gun control means even the pettiest robbery or aggression could end in a shootout with one or more victims. Guns should be sold only for a good reason, expecially they should not be sold to people which had alcohol or drug problems or had already committed crimes.

 

these guys included? http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=1512&issue_id=62008

 

Well that's another problem you just put on the table. It seems american policemen want to be big and strong beyond human limits, say they like to abuse steroids. Personally i would never let someone who abuses of his own body be a police officer. But it looks like that's an overall major problem with americans, that of steroid and similar muscle enhancing drugs.

 

well, do they get guns or not?

 

Yes they do, so what? Are you saying just because police officers are on steroids, then everyone can have a gun?

 

your claim was anyone who uses drugs should not have a gun...obviously you didn't mean that.

 

What on earth do you mean by "no gun control"? There are way too many gun laws already in America. The gun store knows whether the customer is good or bad because we have the Brady check. There are further limitations that are incidental, but not directly identified as "gun control". I drive a taxi cab in Las Vegas. Every year, I have to re-qualify for my permit. This includes thorough review through FBI records of my fingerprints and any other record that the Gov. has of me. If ANY of that came up negative, I would be denied my driving permit, AND my right to own any guns. Oddly enough, I am not allowed to have any weapons at all while I'm on the job. Not even a pen knife. I keep saying that the problem is NOT with guns, but with violent people. That's what needs more control.

 

Really? I'd like to see that "statistical FACT" documented, since I am able to provide credible sources that say otherwise...

"We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns..... Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

Of course, you are partially right about crime rate... The more likely a potential victim is to be a gun owner, the less likely that a criminal will choose to victimize that person. Of course, you're ignoring the fact that a person is less likely to feel safe committing a crime if they are not armed.
That's why gun bans don't work, but steps need to be taken to limit the ability of criminals and psychos to obtain firearms.

 

The fact that people use guns in a large majority of violent crimes illustrates that our current system does not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. For example, there is nothing in place that makes it easy to identify straw purchases (where most criminals get their guns).

Anyone saying that guns should be banned is a moron, but making it difficult for criminals and psychos to get guns in the first place (with minimal impact, if any on the average citizen) is just common sense.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/harvard_gun_study_refutes_gun_grabber_claims.html

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/08/holy-toledo-harvard-study-proves-that.html

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...d-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

 

That depends on whether you want to compare the US to other first world democracies that have enacted some form of gun control, or whether you include third world countries that have nothing in common with the US. Additionally, each country has different standards for what constitutes "violent crime",

That's intentionally misleading since it only illustrates where countries are BANNED have higher rates than their neighbors. It totally ignores the fact that banning is not the only form of "gun control", or that many of those neighbors being positively portrayed actually have other forms of gun control.

More relevent is this finding, which is also through the Harvard study:
"For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns..... Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...fense-gun-use/

This totally ignores the fact that all "criminal psychopaths that ignore all laws" are gaining access to firearms. If you follow the chain back, you'll find that these firearms come from an individual or organization that is not a criminal psychopath. If THAT is the point at which we step in, so that those people stops providing firearms to criminals, the supply chain that "criminal psychopaths that ignore all laws" rely on will be cut.

As previously said, only if you compare the US to third-world countries instead of our peers. This is a misleading approach, equal to comparing the average high school student's literacy results to those of kindergarteners instead of just other high school students.

 

There is no doubt that too many police use steroids, which is a bad thing that should be prevented by implementing drug testing for LEOs across the country, but it has nothing to do with this topic and is simply a red herring used by the lowest common denominator.

I'd avoid wasting time with any fool who claims "a significant (unprovable) segment of LEOs are drug users and are allowed to carry firearms, therefore all drug users should be allowed to carry firearms".

 

Funny, that's how I look at all your posts and links.

 

Gang Bangers Dangerous? LOL!!!

I think NOT!!!!

People just THINK they are dangerous because they either cannot or will not or do not have the means to defend themselves.

If every family in Detroit was armed with a few Hand Guns and an AR-15....Gang Bangers would become EXTINCT within a week!

We have had Gang Bangers drive into my town and that lasted about as long a period a time as a 30.06 round can travel 500 feet.

AboveAlpha

 

The difference is that I actually explain what fallacies I see. You claim there are fallacies, but choose not to (can't?) point any out.

 

"If every family in Detroit was armed with a few Hand Guns and an AR-15..." every gang banger in Detroit would find it even easier to get their hands on firearms, and nobody would be able to step out of their homes without dodging bullets.

 

Only in your mind do you explain fallacies, the rest of us see dodge, duck, and deflect. The one thing I don't do is argue with the ill informed, especially since over and over you have been proven to provide the most fallacies. Your love is arguing, I believe people like you would argue with your image in the mirror. Me personally, I don't really give a rats patootie about your beliefs, I can't recall one valid point you have made....I do like watching you do the DDD dance though

 

It doesn't work that way.

The weak are subjugated by the strong.

The strong become strong by either arming themselves or defending themselves.

AboveAlpha

 

You claim that it is reasonable for "every family" to use firearms to attack what they perceive as a threat, and don't think this would cause additional problems?

I don't believe the weak are universally subjugated by the strong. Sometimes, the strong are there to help the weak. As we all have different strengths and weaknesses, that's what makes a society work. To claim otherwise is to promote anarchy.

 

Really? You don't understand why comparing the US to a third-world country is less valid than comparing it to other first-world democracies? The notion that you can't grasp this simple concept is a sad statement about our education system...

That's because they agree with you.

Sorry, I must have missed this "proof" you speak of. Could you point it out?

Can I ask what you're doing on a forum that exists to facilitate the discussion of highly debateable topics if you are uninterested in anyone's view that doesn't perfectly align with your own?

Your lack of short term memory is one thing we apparently agree on.

So I take it you support gay marriage?

 

While not always true that may be the way to bet. Look at what they have done to the people in the US.

 

If you have no interest in defending yourself please be a good victim.

On the other hand if you recognize that you alone are responsible for your personal safety then arm up, train up and live.

 

Each situation is unique. I used a weapon to defend myself. No one was injured but I was prepared to kill the one who intended to harm me. He knew it and he left.

Edit/Focus on the thread topic, not other members.