What armed self defense really looks like.

Yes there is a reason for your cynicism ...you just can't grasp the reality that what you are posting isn't accepted nor proven to be effective so you become frustrated. True story

speaking of regurgitating slogan, you have the antigun slogans down just fine...and as to your 2nd amendment comment...guess you'll just have to accept the interpretation of SCOTUS or continue with an out of touch diatribe, either way your logic of requiring training confined to a small portion of the objects purchased and used inappropriately is really kind of disingenuous, which makes your comments quite irrelevant eh!

This is where you veer from reality and your true colors come to full display. Self defense is an inalienable right of nature and you don't get to control what is used...sorry it irritates you so much. Guns end up in the hands due to criminal acts of criminals, punish them accordingly.

On the other hand illustrating that a gun is a great equalizer for young and old alike is actually a silver bullet to those who have had to use one...just ask em. I'll also guarantee that waiting on the overworked LEOs is mostly less desirable than owning ones own method of self defense. My advice to you....you live your life anyway you like....Us gun toting civilians will do our best not to shoot you unintentionally while defending our families. BTW I just love how you like to emphasize the extremes in an attempt to make a point....it's mostly why your comments get marginalized so often.

Really, people who make comments like this should have to take training to post on forums like this....eh?

 

Actually, it has more to do with the frustration I feel that people are so delusional in beliefs despite reality...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

How many times have you seen someone you agree with quote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," instead of just "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."?

"a small portion of the objects purchased and used inappropriately" that account for the objects used to commit 66% of felonies...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

A) I've never supported a gun ban, and you know it. Saying people should be trained to use guns so they don't end up like the moron in the OP is not saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves.
B) Allowing crimes to happen and then mopping up the mess isn't working too well currently. After all, if it was your kid or brother who was just shot in the latest school shooting, would you be fine with it as long as the perp was arrested or shot? Taking action to prevent crimes from happening in the first place makes a little more sense, eh?

Yeah, it's a great equalizer to those criminals who suddenly have the power to take on folks they normally couldn't. It cuts both ways.

But not quite as desirable as limiting the likelihood of needing one in the first place, eh?

The day I actually want your condescending advise is the day Hell freezes over. Thanks anyway.

I agree, you really need some help with critical thinking skills.

 

And I rest my case....Thanks for playing

 

NEWS FLASH: 6 years ago, a few cops with the assistance of a swat team managed to stop a criminal who obviously found obtaining firearms way too easy!
Cool story.

So the criminal attempted to escape as soon as he realized he had been discovered, the owners' lives were never endangered, and nothing was accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished by just giving the cops the license plate number to the truck...
Cool story.

FINALLY, you got a decent example of actual self-defense. Luckily the criminal wasn't carrying a firearm too, right? Why not keep it that way rather than make them easy for criminals to get their hands on?

- - - Updated - - -

Your case, based solely on hyperbole, was refuted with actual evidence...
Which proves my case that some folks are so delusional that they are almost impossible to communicate with.

 

Video Meanwhile an unarmed citizen can just sit back and wait for police to save the day.

 

A gun is 20 times as likely to be used to kill the owner or a member of the owner's family, than it is to be used to kill a stranger attacking the owner or his family.

 

Results may vary. I keep my guns locked up, I follow safety rules at all times when firearms are involved, and I'm pretty selective about people who get access to my guns and situations where my guns are out. I am far less likely to be shot by one of my own guns than some dumb redneck that plays with guns while (*)(*)(*)(*)faced. I can say you are 3 times more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun but that's not taking into account how you handle your vehicle or any other variables.

 

Der Wust- Yer' pretty sharp for a puppet!
It's cute to see the libs in here, trying to make a case in the midst of seasoned shooters.
We can find a little bit of peace in knowing that the US is still experiencing an ammo shortage, largely because so many people are buying guns for the first time.
Logician keeps implying that everything would be so much better if there were no guns available for anyone. Well, guns in the world are a fact of life, along with alcohol, politicians, weather and sunlight. Responsibility is a fact of life, and acting without it will get you in trouble with all of those things. Grow up and get a clue.
I've had to use my guns several times in defense of myself and others. I've never had to put a bullet into a man, but they knew for sure that it would be the very next thing. You might say that I have my Glock here beside me for the same reason why I carry a spare tire in the car. Things happen, and one is best advised to be prepared.

 

Logician has made no such implications...

Saying that people should receive training in firearms, that background checks for purchases are a good idea, or that guns should be secured to minimize accidental shootings, is NOT support of a gun ban.

Nice hasty generalization though.

 

I don't live in an unsafe area, and I avoid bad areas most of the time. There are times when I must travel through these places, and I like having the legal option of being able to defend myself and my family with a good handgun.

But you do not support individual civil rights for honest, law abiding citizens. You absolutely do not support the 2nd amendment as it was written. You should not allow people to have or carry guns based on their level of personal threat, or their political or celebrity status. You should allow all honest citizens to keep and bear (carry) firearms as each individual sees fit. Criminals who have been convicted of harming others should have no right to be armed any more now than they were 200 years ago. Back when the Counstitution was still young, the criminal justice system focued on punishing and eliminating criminals themselves, not the guns they may have used.

All honest citizens (not illegals or small children) deserve the right to have a gun at home or carry one at most any public place that allows them. No city should even infringe on this right, no state or especially the feds. Violent criminals, traitors and terrorists should not even be allowed to live. Johnny Taliban aka Walker Lingh is a traitor and terrorist. He should have been executed by the military after being found in the enemy camp aiding and abetting the Taliban. Had a similar dirtbag been caught with a group of saboteurs who killed even a few civilians, or attacked military targets during the War of 1812, the Civil War or even WW2, they would have been shot on the spot--- 6th, or later, 14th, 15th Amendments or not. Johnny Taliban gave up his rights as a US citizen when he joined the Taliban. Jose Padilla is a similar terrorist and enemy combatant.

 

I hastily generalize nothing. Read your own posts!
We have background checks. Anyone who applies for a CCW is required to complete a safety course and qualification. The level of security depends on the life conditions of the gun owner. I live alone, so I don't feel at all obligated to lock my guns away.
Penalties for gun crimes should be much more severe, and absolutely enforced. This would be possible if our justice system wasn't clogged up with marijuana users.
There are over 100 million legal gun owners in America now. That's just about everyone who can legally own. Like it or not, this is your world.

 

I think you've mistaken something I posted because I'm not anti gun. I don't believe everyone should be forced to own a gun for defense, but I have no objection to you using one for defense. When a matter of seconds can mean life or death someone else can wait 10-15 minutes for police to respond if they choose to respond at all. Logician has just as much a right not to own a gun as you and I have to own one. Doesn't mean I plan to give mine up. It just means I won't tell him he has to have one.

If you're talking about my response to goober I'm not sure how you could portray that as anti gun. I'm simply stating as a responsible gun owner I have a lesser chance of shooting someone by accident (or negligence) than someone with no concept of gun safety. As for the video I posted about someone being able to just being able to wait for police did you actually watch the video? She was beaten savagely in her own home and couldn't call the police until after all is said and done. For all she knew at the time she could have been beaten to death and the police wouldn't have responded in time to save her.

I think that pretty much covers everything.

 

I'm sorry I came across that way to you. I was responding to Logician and Goober. From what I see you posting, I believe that you're in my camp, and welcome there.
Here's an interesting read on the ammo shortage:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/10/20/is-the-obama-administration-the-cause-of-gun-ammunition-shortages/
Because of the recent surge in gun sales, there are an estimated 100 million + gun owners in America now. That's just about every single one of us who can legally purchase, regardless of political beliefs.
I think this is as it should be. It pretty much eliminates the idea of a "gun culture" in America, and makes it clear that America is the culture of gun ownership.
I can't watch video on this computer. I'm on dial-up, and even that keeps dropping out.
Anyway, it's been a long time since law enforcement has told us that it is no longer their duty to "Serve and Protect". They won't say as much, but this makes the matter of self defense a personal responsibility. People like Logician and Goober can choose not to own and understand firearms, but they need to understand that it's their decision to be a victim, rather than the Free master of their own circumstances.

 

"Der Wust- Yer' pretty sharp for a puppet!"
Didn't look like that was particularly directed towards goob or log so I wanted to be sure. No worries though.

In that link it looks like the trend to buy more guns really started at the beginning of Bush Jr's second term in 05. The article is a pretty good read.

In Warren V DC the Supreme Court ruled that except in special relationships the police aren't legally obligated to protect you and are protected from liability if they don't respond in time. About a year ago a friend told me about how she was closing up her store for the night when someone started pounding on the door trying to break in. First thing she did was call 911. Secondly she called her boss. The nearest police station was 4 blocks away while her boss was clear on the other side of town. Her boss showed up in 15 minutes. By then the stranger had given up on breaking in and left. The police took an hour and a second call to get around to responding. It's still not an example of how police will respond every time, but it's definitely good indication to have a backup plan.

 

Your avatar is a puppet!
The back-up plan is of huge importance. I talk to people often who have either just bought their first gun, or are considering it. I tell them the same thing I told the young girl I recently gave my shotgun to. Have a plan.
For home defense, designate a "safe" room. Usually the shared bedroom. If you're alone and someone breaks in, get the gun, call 911 and stand ready, in the room. If there are children in the house, they should all know the plan. Everyone meets in the parents room. If both parents are home, one stays on with 911 while the other stands ready with the gun.
There should be a similar plan for anyone who works alone in a place like a convenience store. It's pretty weird in our society, where most people like that will be fired for self defense. I drive a taxi, and I'm not even allowed to have a pen knife. Life in the world.
We're headed square into another depression. For those who are still holding out, I suggest that you rethink your position about gun ownership.

 

Your mom is a puppet!

Fortunately there are no little kids in the home so that's not a concern for me right away. Basically your plan is the plan I use. I keep a mossberg 500 locked in a cabinet with 00 buck in the tube. Should something happen I can run in my room, lock the door, grab the gun, then dial 911.

The NRA's been making a pretty big deal about the defense thing. Apparently a gas station worker stopped a robbery with a gun then was fired because Shell has a no gun policy to "protect their employees". Shell's policy is to offer no resistance at all. Just give the robber what they want then let the police deal with it later. Even better when this story hit the news Shell told the world their employees are instructed not to fight back at all. I'm sure a lot of robbers are going to love that policy.

 

As someone who was trained to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat", I don't believe in giving a second thought to the deaths of enemies of the United States who are killed in combat.

That being said, your blatant willingness to pick and choose which Constitutional rights should apply to US citizens who aren't killed in combat - as well as your acceptance of sedition committed by politicians who you believe represent your views - just illustrates that the patriotic nationalistic BS being spouted here is just a smokescreen for your primary concern: your self interest, with no regard for how policies you approve of impact society as a whole.

Let's face it, you don't support the notion of a well regulated militia, you know that your likelihood of actually needing to use a firearm in self-defense is no greater (and probably smaller) than the chance that that firearm might be used (accidentally or otherwise) to harm someone you care about... You just want a penile compensation device to make yourself feel better.

I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens having a right to bear arms any more than I have a problem with them having a right to subsist on a diet of nothing but Twinkies and Jolt Cola. I do, however, have a problem with a system put in place by people who make money through the sale firearms to criminals (directly or indirectly) and law-abiding folks alike and then boosting sales by scaring people into believing then need guns to protect themselves from armed criminals that lurk in every shadow.

 

News Flash: that's the standard policy of major corporations all over the world.
A person robbing a gas station, liquor store or other retail establishment is generally after one thing: money.

If that person can get the money out of the register (which is kept at a low amount by periodically dropping money into a safe that most employees can't get into), the business looses a few hundred bucks that insurance will cover with a relatively small claim that won't have much effect on premiums... and the motive of a robber to injure a cooperative employee is low since it wouldn't actually provide any benefit to the robber.

If a firefight breaks out in the business, costs to the business (brand damage, employee medical expenses, lost trade during renovations, property damage, etc) will cost the business significantly more.

Maybe security policy in major businesses is best left to the professionals who actually understand risk assessment.

 

Great post!!

 

Really? How many private sales include background checks?
Given that most folks at gun shows are not FFLs, how many of those sales include background checks?

Great, so we can look forward to someone breaking in while you're not home and becoming an armed criminal with your help. Thanks.
Of course, if there is no chance of someone breaking in, I guess that home defense isn't an issue for you...

This I totally agree with, except that I also believe it would be easier to enforce laws relating to gun crimes if we could identify who was selling them to criminals (ie: straw purchases) and cut that link in the supply chain.

Your asserting that "just about everyone who can legally own" does. This is a fallacy.
Actually, just over a third of Americans own firearms (down from around half of all Americans, thirty years ago), and those folks are generally 50-64 year old, white conservative Republican men, in the South who have little education. Like it or not, this is your world.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
The fact that most of these folks own more than one gun (equalling 100 million guns legally owned) seems to have been overlooked in your assertion.


Since you seem to believe that people should bow to the majority opinion, you should probably be aware of the article linked below from a media outlet that clearly leans to the political right:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-background-checks-also-cause-worry/

 

wrong try again please

 

Maybe you can tell me the real numbers, those are the numbers I read a few years ago in the New York Times.

 

Maybe you can post the new York times article

 

I threw the paper away three years ago.
Maybe you can back up your assertion....no, you can't, because it's true, the most likely person to be killed by any gun, is the owner, followed by a member of the owner's family. Followed by an unrelated innocent victim, that's just the way it is.
Way down the list is the valid defensive shooting.

But hey, go get your guns, enjoy them, most people survive gun ownership.

 

surely you jest...with all that technology at your finger tips you mean you can't google your article or any article that shows proof of your decisive statement? I said your post was wrong... please provide proof that your assertion was more than just talking points from the antigun vaults of desperation...then I will prove my assertions that you were wrong. That's a simple concept eh?

Your assertion that the person most likely to be killed is the owner, followed by a members family member, followed by an innocent victim surely has some sort of FBI or Justice department statistics that could be provided by someone so astute as you with your confident response....eh? You should also be able to provide some statistical evidence that valid defensive shootings are way down the list....I breathlessly await your positive proof that the above comments have some basis in reality.
Thanks