2015 edition, What armed self defense looks like.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...condition-after-being-shot-by-resident-in-pa/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...ns-gunfight-against-2-armed-robbers-in-texas/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...how-store-owner-opening-fire-on-armed-robber/

Criminals beware, this is becoming more and more common, another career choice might be better suited to a longer life.

 

I think people are resourceful.
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...-away-from-home-invader-then-shot-killed-him/

 

I would like to see more posts of what armed self defense looks like by the members here, who have used arms in self defense.
When I was about 19, 2 buddies and I went deer hunting. We had been out walking all over the hills for several hours when we came to a bit of a heavy rock outcrop. We figured that this could be a good place to just hang around for a few minutes.
Out of nowhere, the rocks very near us exploded. It happened again. There was a guy across the ravine. I guess he had staked this place out as "his", and he was letting us know that we were not welcome. Well, that ain't the way you do it.
I found a good nook in the shade, where he couldn't see me, and searched with my scope until I found him. He was crouched under a large branch of the tree behind him.
My rifle was a lovely Ruger #1, 1976 edition, with the barrel inscribed with "Made in the 200th. year of our American Liberty". I really liked that rifle. It was chambered in 7mm Rem. Mag.
I put a round into the base of the branch that our friend was situated beneath. It split from the tree, and effectively silenced him. None of our party thought to go over and see if he needed help.

 

Would you classify this as "defensive gun use"?

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/

It just happens all over the US, eh?

 

Those gentlemen were not thieves but simply undocumented shoppers.

 

You mean the "would-be victim" was armed and got disarmed? How was he armed, and why didn't that make him safe?
You mean the attacker had a firearm and it didn't make him safe even from a disarmed opponent? Shocking!

Thanks for, once again, illustrating that we need to make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons in the first place.

 

What else would it be? He was trying to kill us. I made him stop.
Remember wut they say in futboll:
"The best defense is a strong offense".

 

I thought you said he was sending you a message, not trying to kill you...?

It's interesting how rapidly "heroic" subjective stories like this can change.

 

HARDER is not good enough. Don't regulate my ability to defend myself until you have disarmed every criminal. And even then, I still want to defend myself from knife wielding attackers or any other possible weapon.

 

If you are a law-abiding citizen, please demonstrate what difficulty you would have in passing a background check for EVERY firearm purchase. Clearly, this would only reduce the ability of criminals to obtain firearms.

>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

BTW, every criminal was a "law abiding citizen" until they committed their first crime.

 

Background checks on private transactions sounds good to those who are uninformed. The problem is that it has been proven that it cannot be accomplished and enforced without creating a central database. Gun registration is a deal breaker for 2a supporters.

 

You are completely ignoring the fact that licensed dealers already do this without a central registration database... Why can't private sales involve a dealer, if no simpler solution can be found by those who make policy for a living?

 

I'm in the business. It's a fact.
I have a gun. No one knows I have it, just like most guns in America. Who can enforce a background check when I sell it to any other private party?

 

I see, so your concern is that "lawful citizens" will choose to break the law when selling their firearms in order to supply people who can't pass a background check... Interesting.

That's almost as paranoid as insisting that firearms (unlike anything else that's currently registered) will suddenly be confiscated if registration were to be implemented.

 

It depends if the government office approving that background check, and holding all the records, is law-abiding. Government has repeatedly demonstrated in the past that it itself is not always willing to follow the law. Requiring a license or registration for something is just another potential way of making that thing illegal for certain people, if the government chooses not to follow it's own law and grant the license or registration.

It might reduce the ability of criminals to obtain firearms. But by how much? Will it really stop them, or just make it harder for them?
Nothing can completely eliminate the ability of criminals to obtain firearms. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from the war on drugs.

And you make a fatal flaw in your premise. Who says we should be trying to take away the ability of criminals to obtain firearms??

I believe this is just a gun-grabber attempt to appeal to the widely-held Conservative disdain of criminals, and their desire to take away all their rights. If I can draw an analogy, it seems a lot like the Pro-life ballot initiative in Arizona to make racial discrimination against the unborn a crime.

 

Why is this more of a problem than the current standard through licensed dealers?

I think what you're asking is what percentage of firearms are currently obtained by criminals through straw purchases...
This link might help: http://journalistsresource.org/stud...un-dealers-pawnbrokers-illegal-weapons-sales#

Are you seriously implying that criminals should be armed? That's simply moronic.

The paranoid delusions that drive you to distrust anyone who disagrees with your world view are irrelevant. I don't have a problem with responsible people who know how to use firearms owning them. I have a problem with a status quo that makes it easy for criminals to obtain firearms, then claims that ownership of firearms is the only solution. That only benefits manufacturers, rather than the general public.

 

Define "criminal".

No, I am not arguing that people in prison should be armed.

If you are talking about people who have been released from prison, for most of them I do not see any reason they should not be armed. Why should this right be taken away just because they have been punished with prison?

I have a problem with people who think that restricting something will prevent it. If guns were as restricted as gun control proponents wanted them to be, I really question how many murders that would actually prevent.

As long as the law does not require ordinary people to seek special permission before they can buy one.
At least just stick to punishing people who have broken the law.

Another thought, if people are required to seek permission (which I disagree with), at least make it part of the law that they are still allowed to buy a gun if the government office in question did not follow what the law directs them to do, and did not grant the permission. This is an important point.

 

But those same people magically become entitled to firearms again once they regain access to the general public?!
Ever heard of recidivism?
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4987

I don't know about you, but my balls aren't crystal and I can't use them to look into the future... That means we can only look at other developed countries to determine the likely outcome.
The homicide rate in America is four times as high as that in England and Wales. There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.

How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf).
In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf)involving a knife or other sharp instrument -whether used or just threatened- but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns. That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf).

So, the fact that Americans own twice as many guns per person as any other nation seems to have made very little difference in the risk to the criminal, while increasing the criminal's ability to arm himself... Smart.

 

Yes. I would.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...iend-and-his-friend-who-kicked-down-her-door/

two lives saved with one gun

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...er-in-texas-stands-his-ground-during-assault/

It doesn't pay sometimes to mess with the elderly, eh?

 

Woman uses machete against burglar.

http://wreg.com/2015/01/06/woman-with-machete-stops-burglar/

MEMPHIS, Tenn. &#8212; A Whitehaven woman, armed with a machete, took on a man who tried breaking into her home in the 5000 block of Horn Lake.

&#8220;I was swinging my machete thinking, &#8216;Chop him! Chop him! Chop him!'&#8221; Cheryl Nibley said.

She sprang into action Tuesday afternoon when she heard someone breaking into her house. &#8220;As I was talking to the police on the phone I was hearing my window coming up in my bedroom,&#8221; she said. &#8220;So I&#8217;m telling the police that he&#8217;s coming in the house! He&#8217;s coming in the house!&#8221;

As the window went up, Nibley brought her machete down over and over again. She has even given the machete a name, calling it Rufus. &#8220;Say hello to my little friend,&#8221; she teased, holding a foot-long knife up. &#8220;I chopped the blinds up. I chopped him up. I chopped the bed up.&#8221;

She thinks she sliced the intruder on the head and shoulders.

He took off running, but Nibley and her machete took off after him. &#8220;I ran back out the door with my machete and my cell phone. I was still on the phone with the police, and I was chasing him down the road there.&#8221;

Nibley believes this was the same person who broke into her home last month. &#8220;He broke in here right before Christmas and stole all the televisions,&#8221; she said.

She has a warning and advice for anyone who thinks about coming back uninvited. &#8220;They need to be careful, and they need to go get a job! Go make some money and stop stealing people&#8217;s stuff!&#8221;

However, if they do come back, she and Rufus will be waiting. &#8220;Rufus, you did good,&#8221; she said, petting the knife. &#8220;You saved me!&#8221;

Nibley lost sight of the intruder as she was chasing him, but thinks he may be injured.

So far, police do not have any leads.

 

Circumcision by .38

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3Dy_XsaxI [/video]

 

damn, that was good 'un, Tex.
More importantly, this lame f____r thought he could just walk out........guess not!!!!! lmmfao

 

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defen...en-store-owner-and-armed-robber-in-cleveland/

At least he had the means to stop the attack, and we all know the bad guy would have been armed in-spite of any laws. I mean he attempted to rob the deli in-spite of it being illegal.