What armed self defense really looks like.

My point being that if there was any doubt before whether the clerk is allowed to respond it's pretty much gone now.

Also the apathy displayed is pretty problematic. If a clerk isn't allowed to respond then why shouldn't I just go ahead and rob the store? As long as I cover my physical features it will be pretty difficult to identify me. The clerk won't fight back and the owner won't care since the insurance will pay for it. As long as I don't get caught there's no problem.

Same goes for home defense right? What should I care if someone breaks into my house and steals my valuables? As long as I just let them the insurance will cover it and if I don't interfere they won't hurt me. I can do whatever I want and the police are the only ones allowed to stop me. Nobody else has the authority or the ability to stop me.

 

Are you saying that the only difference between you and an armed robber or burglar is a fear of violent confrontation?

 

I am saying one of the problems of society is the lack of responsibility. No matter what the problem it's someone elses problem so I shouldn't get involved ever. I am expected to let everyone else do whatever they want and never get involved. If someone needs to intervene I am expected to let the police handle it.

 

I talk to a lot of English people who have exactly that to deal with. If they injure a home invader/burglar, they face prosecution. They're not at all happy with that.

 

Who said that?
I don't think you can use one example of an employee being fired for putting himself and his employer's assets at risk (against company policy) as proof that "No matter what the problem it's someone elses problem so I shouldn't get involved ever."



More to the point, wanting to change a system that makes it too easy for people to get firearms without any level of competance, and also makes it easy for criminals to obtain firearms, is not the same as saying that "nobody should ever have a firearm", or "nobody should ever use a firearm".

 

So one incident of an employee getting fired for bringing a gun to work is not proof that I shouldn't be allowed to do anything. However, one incident of negligence in a self defense situation is proof I shouldn't have one for defense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0qsi1z4Fi8

 

You're over the horizon in left field if you think I give a rats' rectum for majority opinion. I think for myself, and have very little trust for anyone who proclaims himself to be an "authority" about anything.
Do you live in a very small space? Do you ever leave it? How can you be so devoid of real world knowledge?

 

That's odd. Seems to me that they have the right (under their own laws) to use reasonable force...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

Of course, I guess that is more restrictive than being able to use lethal force against somebody who represents no danger and claiming "self defense"...
[video=youtube_share;qn1HcXtMd2c]http://youtu.be/qn1HcXtMd2c[/video]

 

Your "guess" would be wrong. What a shock.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

What makes you think that I care how long you've lived there, or that it's relevant to the fact that your unsecured guns could become "an issue for the whole community" if they're stolen?

1) I never used the words "old" or "hicks". I simply provided information compiled by Gallup, which is certainly not lacking in credibility.
2) Your link has nothing to do with how many firearms are owned or by who... Poor excuse for a red herring.

Once again, your assertion (that just about everyone in America who can own a gun, does own a gun) contradicts any information I can find, but you might be right about it being 100 million owners... which is in line with the statistics I provided earlier saying about a third of Americans own firearms (down from around half of all Americans, thirty years ago), since our current population is over 300 million.
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Resorting to personal attacks is a pretty good way of illustrating your frustration with not having anything valid to say in response to actual facts that disprove your nonsensical assertions. Just sayin'.

 

What it really is comes down to wondering just what on earth you think you're proving? You're attacking the good guys, who have worked their entire lives as responsible, law abiding citizens. What is your major malfunction?
Big clue. The entire US population of roughly 325 mil., minus the 100 mil. gun owners leaves 225 mil. How many of those are under 16? How many are incarcerated, convicted felons, or otherwise not qualified to own a firearm? We're running low on numbers here.
It doesn't matter to me what you think or say or do. Grow up and gain some maturity in your world view. I'm done with you.

 

I didn't say that either. I did highlight that having a gun, by itself, does not magically make a person capable of defending themselves.
That's why I believe training (as well as background checks) should be mandated.

 

My "major malfunction" is that our current system makes it too easy for psychos, morons and criminals to obtain firearms and there are people who defend the system because they're so afraid of change that they can't bear to improve what currently exists.
Let's face it, the average gun owner is conservative, and the average conservative is aging.
If conservatives don't help establish reasonable steps to fix our current system, who will be making the decisions in 20 or 30 years?

I don't want to see a gun ban, but that's more likely to happen eventually if something more balanced can't be worked out.

 

The war of Independence began when the Brits tried confiscation. This is America, and we are the Americans. Don't try it.

 

Actually out of all Americans who own guns....49% are Republicans....41% are Democrats....10% are Independents. High Number Gallup Poll. The lower number Gallup Poll was off by 5 %.

47% of all Americans own guns....and this poll is considered to have a plus 15% and a 1% Minus as many Americans don't like to tell people they might own a gun.

92% of this 47% say they own more than one gun.

Total number of guns in the U.S. Legal....378 Million plus or minus 5 million.

Illegal.....35 Million.

The Population of the United States is the most heavily armed population on the face of the Earth and when the Old Soviet Union and now China once and do create war scenarios....NONE OF THESE SCENARIOS involves an attempted invasion of the U.S. and Canada.....as such an invasion is deemed....IMPOSSIBLE.

AboveAlpha

 

Any firearm purchase from an FFL already requires a background check. I'm not adverse to the idea of getting one for a private transfer, but I am adverse to the idea of mandating them for private transfer because it's impossible to enforce. Look at all the drug dealers in this country. There are thousands if not millions of drug transfers every day. The police can't be everywhere at once to stop them. They won't be everywhere to observe every gun transfer either.

As for training making it law doesn't make it right or wrong. Requiring someone to pass a test just means they have to show enough competence to pass a test. Look at drivers. You have to prove to the DMV you are a responsible and competent driver in order to get your license. When you take that test and passed the DMV says that's good enough and they give you a license. Many people drive drunk or otherwise dangerously and negligently. Once you have that license the law often doesn't get involved with what you do behind the wheel until it's too late. A laminated piece of paper doesn't magically make you more responsible.

Also I don't trust the government to be given more power to decide who can or can't own guns. I do not believe the majority of them genuinely have our best intentions at heart. Mandated licensing and training will at best be a way to give them a little more revenue and at worst give them the power to say everyone is too dangerous and need to be disarmed.

 

http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/

 

Change? you mean give up our 2nd Amendment Rights. That is the only way, according to your results, that it could happen. Tell me, how does that keep the guns out of the hands of the pyschos, morons , or wannabe tyrants. Just ask your uncle Mao, gun control works real well.

 

Hey, I did 4 years in the US Army, so what? Most of the guys I served with were ignorant of politics and Constitutional law.

I believe the law is what it is when it was written, and by understanding the views of the people who wrote it. You are a progressive liberal. You contort the meaning of any law to fit your views. As I have said many times in this form, the term "well regulated" has to do with command and control of the militia, not the regulation of exactly what kind of gun is allowed to be owned at home by each citizen. Please share with us ANY edividence of ANY gun control made by the Founders regulating gun use by any free US citizen. I use my guns most for target practice, same as using a bow and arrow, same as using a bowling ball to knock down pins. I care more about saving innocent lives than you do, because you want to disarm weaker citizens who are always best defended by using a gun. And sorry, your tool isn't going to grow any longer by taking away people's guns and INFRINGING on the 2nd Amendment.

And if you are more worried about victims of guns here in the US, then focus on the half of all murders in many large cities that are done by street gangs.

• In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2010 to 2011.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

You are obsessed with the relative few people harmed in home gun accidents, and not worried about the real problems with dangerous criminals. Your posts talk about needing to mollycoddle prisoners and terrorists. Many people wouldn't have this genuine fear of gangs if liberals like you and Obama were serious about eliminating gangs instead of grabbing guns.

 

Thank you very much, AA, for finding the correct numbers and contributing that work to this thread. Now, what the "progressive" *******s need to do is to progress all the way back to the very same understanding that the commies realized: You are not going to overthrow Liberty. Not from the outside, and certainly NOT from the inside.

 

LOL a link from your own article. Furthermore your article speaks mostly to suicide not self defense....not what we were quite talking about was it?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-print.pdf

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/05/01/10-shocking-gun-control-myths/

And finally, along the lines of your source...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/

Did you look all night for that information...did you find you article you quoted?

 

Yeah, so if you don't count gun owners and family members shooting themselves, then you're right.

 

Good non-response to the topic we were discussing......having your own gun used against you. Care to comment on that?

 

Not having read any of the postings above yours I'm going to jump in here simply because I find your question interesting.

Having your own weapon used against you is always a possibility. You can train until you are as good as any LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) and still have it happen; just like you can be a master of empty hand fighting, slip on a wet surface and get your head handed to you by a street punk who just got lucky. But all in all it's better to have good training and use common sense than not. As to whether citizens should still have access to weapons with an ever growing population and ever changing definitions of what it means to be civilized; well that is another topic of discussion.

 

And you would be correct....it is a possibility, however the discussion centered on how (according to the goober) it is way more likely to have your gun used against you than for you to use it successfully in self defense. This is an antigun talking point that has long been disproved because the statistics they use fail to take into account that using a firearm for self defense doesn't require actually shooting a firearm. I just hate the deception when goobers point to dishonest articles as if they were fact.
As to training...sure it's a good idea but it isn't the cure all panache the ant gunners want you to believe.

Citizens having access to guns is not a consideration for an ever growing population or even ever changing definitions of being civilized. It is a birthright of American citizens that goes along with free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizures. It's here to stay.

 

It's the same thing with people deriding martial arts training or weight lifting. "Yeah but when it actually happens the untrained but experienced street fighter is always going to beat the weekend dojo warrior and any healthy male is always very close to being just as strong as any serious body builder." Say what now?

What happens is that some people decide what they want to be real and true and then they warp everything they encounter around that core of belief or faith and then proclaim that they have proof of their assertions. I simply look at it this way, barring weird and random acts of irony it's better to have some formal skill and training in [pick your poison] than not and that all else being equal -- if you know what you are doing and use common sense -- you are less likely to have someone take your own weapon away from you and use it or have some lucky punk beat the tar out of you or have some average guy out arm wrestle a serious weight lifter. It's as if some of these people believe that wild card events are the norm.