Defending oneself in one's own home?
- Thread starter breadman
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
All this violence!! How many crimes against property actually turn into crimes against the peoples? 1%? 2%? And we should have weapons to protect ourself against somebody robbing our house? Let the damn guy rob your stuff!! That's what insurance is for!
NOTHING will ever make me take a weapon against somebody who want to steal my stuff. If I feel my life is threatened, things will be different but for material stuff, in my opinion, it's silly to interfer directly. No stuff is worth a life.
With your big guns and baseball bats, what tell you the burglar, coming into your house with no intention of hurting anybody, won't feel trapped and use your OWN weapon against you? 99% of time, these burglar don't want confrontation. All they want is "grab and run" Shoot first? What if you miss or aren't fast enough? What if you shoot a poor drunk who simply entered the wrong house?
If the burglar expect resistance, he'll bring a weapon so, YOU WITH YOUR BIG WEAPONS ARE MAKING MY LIFE MORE DANGEROUS! That's right! You're contributing to the escalade of violence! That's why I hope Canada will never become like the USA where owing weapons is regarded like a right.
NOTHING will ever make me take a weapon against somebody who want to steal my stuff. If I feel my life is threatened, things will be different but for material stuff, in my opinion, it's silly to interfer directly. No stuff is worth a life.
With your big guns and baseball bats, what tell you the burglar, coming into your house with no intention of hurting anybody, won't feel trapped and use your OWN weapon against you? 99% of time, these burglar don't want confrontation. All they want is "grab and run" Shoot first? What if you miss or aren't fast enough? What if you shoot a poor drunk who simply entered the wrong house?
If the burglar expect resistance, he'll bring a weapon so, YOU WITH YOUR BIG WEAPONS ARE MAKING MY LIFE MORE DANGEROUS! That's right! You're contributing to the escalade of violence! That's why I hope Canada will never become like the USA where owing weapons is regarded like a right.
Let the damn guy rob your stuff???
And then what?
Offer him your car keys?
I have car insurance too.
There are stuff that no insurance can replace,such as precious jewelry,rare collectibale stuff ect...
Anyway,why take chance?
I think the only escalade that could occure would be that if we apply the non-violence passive attitude the burglars will feel even more secure that they won't have to worry about beign hit or something.So they'll keep breaking in w/o fear of serious reprisal.
And then what?
Offer him your car keys?
I have car insurance too.
There are stuff that no insurance can replace,such as precious jewelry,rare collectibale stuff ect...
Anyway,why take chance?
I think the only escalade that could occure would be that if we apply the non-violence passive attitude the burglars will feel even more secure that they won't have to worry about beign hit or something.So they'll keep breaking in w/o fear of serious reprisal.
metoo4 said:NOTHING will ever make me take a weapon against somebody who want to steal my stuff. If I feel my life is threatened, things will be different
The problem is that by the time you find out that the criminal wants more than just your stuff, it's too late to put up any effective resistance.
Like that girl in Harveys a couple of years back. Poor teenage cashier. She didn't put up any fight. She let the burglars tie her up and raid the cash register. Then they decided that they didn't want anyone identifying them, so they slit her throat while she was tied up. (She survived, maimed for life, but was able to testify at trial and get them convicted.)
Kepler said:The problem is that by the time you find out that the criminal wants more than just your stuff, it's too late to put up any effective resistance.
Like that girl in Harveys a couple of years back. Poor teenage cashier. She didn't put up any fight. She let the burglars tie her up and raid the cash register. Then they decided that they didn't want anyone identifying them, so they slit her throat while she was tied up. (She survived, maimed for life, but was able to testify at trial and get them convicted.)
yeah... I remember that incident.
Fucking guy lead a pair of teenagers on a botched robbery.
No gun was used only machette/knife.
The fucking guy once worked there. That's why, he was afraid of identification -> kill all witnesses.
He got life sentence for 1st-degree murder of 2 man Harveys co-worker.
The poor girl was very lucky (hospital was 5 min from there).
The good news is the fucking guy eventually hanged himself in Port-Cartier prison (max-security).
Note: He tried to escape in lower-security prison that's why he got transfer to Port-Cartier.
The bad news the two fucking 15-y-o boys got only 2 years of detention. Fucking ridiculous.
vodka236
Last edited:
There was (is) a string of violent home invasions in the WI and the surronding areas.
No one was caught, its just being sweeped under the rug.
My My why pays taxes to have police protection.. What a contridiction in terms.
Its plain when it comes to my family and their safety, I will apply all means at my disposal to protect. No questions, no moment of contemplation, or trying to rationalize the event, just an armed response to the aggression!
Ultimately the life on my family and mine are my responsability and I do not take such a responsability lightly.
Like they say I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6..
Empower the people!
Porter
No one was caught, its just being sweeped under the rug.
My My why pays taxes to have police protection.. What a contridiction in terms.
Its plain when it comes to my family and their safety, I will apply all means at my disposal to protect. No questions, no moment of contemplation, or trying to rationalize the event, just an armed response to the aggression!
Ultimately the life on my family and mine are my responsability and I do not take such a responsability lightly.
Like they say I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6..
Empower the people!
Porter
Okay, now the discussion needs to shift to what weapon should be used against the burglar. My nomination goes to the Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum, a gun that has been used and specifically approved by Clint "Dirty Harry" Eastwood. More info on this weapon can be found here:
EE 44 magnums is not a good choice for home protection. For one there quite hard to aim, and the noise will render you crazed for a few minutes. Plus the time required for that critical second shot takes too long.
Now a nice little .22LR is a nice thing to have. A nice 1911 Kimber chambered in a .22LR is something that can be fired single handed repeatedly without much felt recoil. Plus at close range .22LR are quite effective.
If you need something bigger, if you need to feel safe , would be a HK .45 ACP.. Yes the good ol' 45. Its a big bore but has much less recopil than a 9mm, is quite slower than the 9mm and will inflict alot of damage.
Many LEO in the Sates are going back to the .45, their service side arm chambered in 9mm is not effective in stopping a would be attacker.. Literally it much too fast clocking at about 1100 fps..
The most important thing about firearms is practice, practice and practice.
Learn the drills, learn when to use, how to control you emotions and when to use.
Porter
All this violence!! How many crimes against property actually turn into crimes against the peoples? 1%? 2%? And we should have weapons to protect ourself against somebody robbing our house? Let the damn guy rob your stuff!! That's what insurance is for!
Metoo,
Maybe you should tell that to the family of the woman who was beaten to death by youths. Or the gas attendant who was burned, or the 1000+ women who were raped last year. The elderly couple who were beaten , one I believe is still in a coma.
I the victim is making your life more dangerous, it is not the innocent who rob you, and beat old women for their savings, but violent offenders.
My right to defend myself is mine !
The law does not protect us, the police are too busy with their ticket quotas, so where does that leave me! If I understand you correctly I should let the assailant bash my skull in because if I defend myself it would make your at risk ????
Have you ever been robbed, beaten, threatened, have you ever been a victim to violnce ??
Porter
NYClimber said:Once they cross the threshold of my home, they are done. The key to shooting an intruder is to kill them. Otherwise they can sue you.
The unfortunate part is that sometimes the family of the "victim" (id est: the criminal killed by the actual victim while the crime was being commited) will then go on to sue the person in a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, violation of civil liberties, etc. - fill in the blank with whatever legal mumbo-jumbo that the defense attorney can come up with.
Just another instance of "Litigation Lotto" for the underclass, fueled and incited by an over-zealous legal community. If I do something stupid and then, as a result, something bad happens, well then somebody else must be to blame. ("I blame society! And what, like, Bog brings." ... there's a little joke in there for fans of a certain movie).
P.S. - when discussing 'robbery' and 'burglary' there is one very key difference. Most people incorrectly use the terms inter-changeably.
Basically it comes down to one point: If you were not home at the time, it's burglary. If you were present when the crime was commited, then it's robbery. How do I know? Because I was burgalrized twice.
I know I said earlier I wouldn’t post anymore in this thread, but I lied. This is a subject I feel very strongly about and some of the posts here are just making me furious.
Nobody here is forcing anyone to own a firearm or to even like them, but why are some people so eager to deny others who desire it the right to do so? Some people here seem very quick to paint millions of law abiding American and Canadian citizens with a very broad brush. “Gun nuts” of course, but have you ever met a hunter, a competitive/recreational shooter, or an honest gun owner who chooses to defend themselves and their loved ones? Have you ever handled a firearm or sought to educate yourself about them? Or are you just too afraid of them and the people who choose to own them to even consider it? Politicians tell us they are bad and dangerous so they must be right? Politicians wouldn’t lie to us would they?
There are 50 states in America, each with very different laws regarding firearms. They are not easily obtainable everywhere here as some of you seem to believe. In my state it requires a licensing fee (paid every four years), a safety course, letters of recommendation, and an interview with your local police department. If you pass all this and get approval (at the local chiefs discretion), then you can legally own a firearm, well at least the ones that aren’t banned already in my particular state. In my state one of town police chiefs publishes a book every year as a resource for all other departments in the state. It may shock you, but the existing laws are so volumous and complicated that even police have a hard time understanding them without help. The book at this time in its 11th edition and is approximately 400 pages long, it deals only with firearms laws in my state. Do you think police officers have a book for what to do with a shoplifter or drunk driver? But, some here in my state think we need more gun laws, because obviously we don’t have enough already. Criminals by definition disregard the laws and they could care less how “illegal” we make firearms, they will obtain them anyway. Legal gun owners using their weapons in a crime, is a very low percentage compared to criminals using illegally obtained guns.
It is true that Americans tend to kill each other rather frequently in comparison to other countries of the world, but I really don’t think gun ownership has anything to do with that. Did you know that many countries such as Germany, France, Finland, and Norway have gun ownership rates of 30% or higher? Even in sensible Europe they have “gun nuts” too it would seem, but apparently their guns don’t like to kill people as much as our dangerous American guns do. In Switzerland most military age men are issued automatic rifles to keep at home by military, so Switzerland must be a really dangerous place right? England is the best example though, in reaction to several horrific shootings the English government decided to ban virtually all privately owned firearms. But, violent crime in England including firearms related crime is on the increase there. How could this be?
Don’t believe me well then read the BBC for yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4467569.stm
Now to all you here who have said just let the burglars take what they want and go, you should really read the article linked to earlier by Femaleluver2. Close to home for me and very much on topic with this thread. Seems two career burglars on parole broke into a nice doctor’s home in CT late at night. Armed with a baseball bat and knife they encountered the man of the house and proceed to beat him silly. I wonder why they didn’t have a gun, because they are so easy to get around here you know? Nice half million dollar home in the suburbs and they were there for several hours, could have easily taken everything they wanted and left. But, instead they tied up the man’s daughters and raped one of them (17 and 13 I believe). Then they took his wife to the bank and made her withdraw $15,000. When they got back to the house, they apparently stabbed her to death and lit the house on fire on their way out. I guess they didn’t hand over there possessions quickly enough. Police caught them trying to flee, but 3 people were already dead. Maybe they should have left all there valuables out on the sidewalk with a big “Take me” sign. I wonder how much insurance money the guy will get for his burned house and of course the lives of his family, because insurance can cover all that stuff why worry about protecting it?
I’ve owned legal firearms for almost 10 years now and I’ve never killed anyone, so I guess I’m slacking. I’ve lived in a household with guns all my life and never felt the desire to murder someone with one. I hope I never have to use one against another person, but I’m certainly prepared to do so if I need to. Only once have I ever come close to using a firearm against another person and that story would scare the crap out of most of you I’m sure, but I don’t even need to tell that story to make my point. Talking about banning guns and cracking down on crime is sexy and it get the voters out but it is all hype, it doesn’t have much effect in reality. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid just because someone is selling it to you. Crazy people and criminals with guns should scare everyone, but your neighbor who happens to own a few should not keep you up at night. What scares me the most is criminals, politicians, and religious whacko’s in that order. Honest gun owners don’t have any place on my list. A properly handled firearm is a great equalizer, it is the only thing I know of that places a 6’2” weight lifter, a 5’ 100lb female, a 19 year old gangbanger and 80 year old man all on a level playing field. Restrictive gun laws only disarm the two weakest players in my list above.
But, Thomas Jefferson an American President and one of the architects of our Constitution put it much better than I ever could:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -- in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776”
A wise man with great foresight beyond his times in my opinion.
SOX
Nobody here is forcing anyone to own a firearm or to even like them, but why are some people so eager to deny others who desire it the right to do so? Some people here seem very quick to paint millions of law abiding American and Canadian citizens with a very broad brush. “Gun nuts” of course, but have you ever met a hunter, a competitive/recreational shooter, or an honest gun owner who chooses to defend themselves and their loved ones? Have you ever handled a firearm or sought to educate yourself about them? Or are you just too afraid of them and the people who choose to own them to even consider it? Politicians tell us they are bad and dangerous so they must be right? Politicians wouldn’t lie to us would they?
There are 50 states in America, each with very different laws regarding firearms. They are not easily obtainable everywhere here as some of you seem to believe. In my state it requires a licensing fee (paid every four years), a safety course, letters of recommendation, and an interview with your local police department. If you pass all this and get approval (at the local chiefs discretion), then you can legally own a firearm, well at least the ones that aren’t banned already in my particular state. In my state one of town police chiefs publishes a book every year as a resource for all other departments in the state. It may shock you, but the existing laws are so volumous and complicated that even police have a hard time understanding them without help. The book at this time in its 11th edition and is approximately 400 pages long, it deals only with firearms laws in my state. Do you think police officers have a book for what to do with a shoplifter or drunk driver? But, some here in my state think we need more gun laws, because obviously we don’t have enough already. Criminals by definition disregard the laws and they could care less how “illegal” we make firearms, they will obtain them anyway. Legal gun owners using their weapons in a crime, is a very low percentage compared to criminals using illegally obtained guns.
It is true that Americans tend to kill each other rather frequently in comparison to other countries of the world, but I really don’t think gun ownership has anything to do with that. Did you know that many countries such as Germany, France, Finland, and Norway have gun ownership rates of 30% or higher? Even in sensible Europe they have “gun nuts” too it would seem, but apparently their guns don’t like to kill people as much as our dangerous American guns do. In Switzerland most military age men are issued automatic rifles to keep at home by military, so Switzerland must be a really dangerous place right? England is the best example though, in reaction to several horrific shootings the English government decided to ban virtually all privately owned firearms. But, violent crime in England including firearms related crime is on the increase there. How could this be?
Don’t believe me well then read the BBC for yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4467569.stm
Now to all you here who have said just let the burglars take what they want and go, you should really read the article linked to earlier by Femaleluver2. Close to home for me and very much on topic with this thread. Seems two career burglars on parole broke into a nice doctor’s home in CT late at night. Armed with a baseball bat and knife they encountered the man of the house and proceed to beat him silly. I wonder why they didn’t have a gun, because they are so easy to get around here you know? Nice half million dollar home in the suburbs and they were there for several hours, could have easily taken everything they wanted and left. But, instead they tied up the man’s daughters and raped one of them (17 and 13 I believe). Then they took his wife to the bank and made her withdraw $15,000. When they got back to the house, they apparently stabbed her to death and lit the house on fire on their way out. I guess they didn’t hand over there possessions quickly enough. Police caught them trying to flee, but 3 people were already dead. Maybe they should have left all there valuables out on the sidewalk with a big “Take me” sign. I wonder how much insurance money the guy will get for his burned house and of course the lives of his family, because insurance can cover all that stuff why worry about protecting it?
I’ve owned legal firearms for almost 10 years now and I’ve never killed anyone, so I guess I’m slacking. I’ve lived in a household with guns all my life and never felt the desire to murder someone with one. I hope I never have to use one against another person, but I’m certainly prepared to do so if I need to. Only once have I ever come close to using a firearm against another person and that story would scare the crap out of most of you I’m sure, but I don’t even need to tell that story to make my point. Talking about banning guns and cracking down on crime is sexy and it get the voters out but it is all hype, it doesn’t have much effect in reality. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid just because someone is selling it to you. Crazy people and criminals with guns should scare everyone, but your neighbor who happens to own a few should not keep you up at night. What scares me the most is criminals, politicians, and religious whacko’s in that order. Honest gun owners don’t have any place on my list. A properly handled firearm is a great equalizer, it is the only thing I know of that places a 6’2” weight lifter, a 5’ 100lb female, a 19 year old gangbanger and 80 year old man all on a level playing field. Restrictive gun laws only disarm the two weakest players in my list above.
But, Thomas Jefferson an American President and one of the architects of our Constitution put it much better than I ever could:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -- in "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776”
A wise man with great foresight beyond his times in my opinion.
SOX
metoo4 said:All this violence!! How many crimes against property actually turn into crimes against the peoples? [...] Let the damn guy rob your stuff!! That's what insurance is for!
I wonder if these people followed your advice:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/family.killed/index.html
I think that unfortunately in the U.S. there is that stronger possibility that the intruder has a firearm, which raises the stakes in not having one yourself. As far as I know most of the time in Canada they are just teenagers whose main tool is a pair of running shoes, which they'll gladly use if you let them.
I used to have a neighbour who had the practice of leaving a bit of cash and a bottle of liquor where it could easily be spotted by someone who had already broken in, with the theory that they are normally just after a bit of cash and a means to party, so would grab it and leave. I personally wondered whether they would get tanked in his house and trash the place worse than they would have, and keep coming back. Interesting theory though, and I always knew where to score a bottle when he was out of town!
I used to have a neighbour who had the practice of leaving a bit of cash and a bottle of liquor where it could easily be spotted by someone who had already broken in, with the theory that they are normally just after a bit of cash and a means to party, so would grab it and leave. I personally wondered whether they would get tanked in his house and trash the place worse than they would have, and keep coming back. Interesting theory though, and I always knew where to score a bottle when he was out of town!
Sox.at.six said:It is true that Americans tend to kill each other rather frequently in comparison to other countries of the world, but I really don’t think gun ownership has anything to do with that. Did you know that many countries such as Germany, France, Finland, and Norway have gun ownership rates of 30% or higher?
SOX
Hello Sox.at.six,
The problem with being armed is the psychology that goes along with carrying a weapon far too often. The people I know who carry arms usually have some sort inner defensive psychological issues that make them more emotionally and physically aggressive than normal in at any time. Adding the accessibilty of arms to how they deal with day to day problems only provides them with more leathal empowerment. Even so-called perfectly normal people feel the temptation to use an edge, such as the presence of a weapon, in a confrontation. Instead of working harder to resolve a confrontational situation without force the temptation of using a weapon at hand to resolve the issue is often too easy to deny. Even among best friends the animal instinct to use an edge in the form of a weapon can be too overwhelming in an emotional point of temporary bitter disagreement or confrontation. In cases where without the presence of a weapon in a crisis moment that could have passed without a leathal consequences and two friends would have made up like the issue had been nothing at all, one best friend is in prison and the other in his grave because a weapon was present.
The access to a weapon simply changes the process of resolution when a certain level of stress is reached. The primal instinct to use an edge such as a gun changes the psychology of an armed person to favor an aggresive one-sided solution that may result in deadly behavior over the psychology of finding a more mutually beneficial solution without the presence of a weapon. The primal urge to "WIN" can only make the odds of a more deadly resolution higher when armed in a critical stress situation.
Yes, you are talking about self-defense in this thread. I get the difference. However, most deadly incidents happen between acquaintances when we would not suspect we even need a weapon for defense. When we do need to defend ourselves the classic "wild west" situation where two armed people confront each other and the righteous person wins rarely happens. Even if you own a gun you probably won't have it ready when you actually need it. Because the typical scenario where a gun would be useful for purely defensive purposes is surprise and ambush you won't have time to get your gun if you don't have it already. And if you are carrying one then it may be more likely that you will be the one to act with unjustified deadly force than the person you are confronting. The purely defensive nature of having a gun is a myth. You have to have a gun on you at all times if you want to use it to defend yourself when the time actually arrives, and the primal nature of human beings is too aggressive to remain defensive with a weapon in hand. Yes...maybe guns don't kill, they just make it so much easier for anyone to settle a situation that way.
Peace and life,
Korbel
Korbel,
I do have a few issues with your comment. The first and foremost is the word weapon!
A weapon is a device whos purpose is to apply or repel force.
Firearms are used in Canada primarrly for sporting purposes, target shooting, hunting, etc etc.
A weapon can almost be anything, a car, a bottle, a rope, a knife or your hands...
Another point is that in Canada, except for LEO, no one has a conceal carry permit !!!
However your point that a gun will enhance an agressive behavior is non sequator, power fear and greed are the root cause of an agressive behavior. The means by which such an agression is carried out, can range from sheer physical size and strenght to explosives!
In terms of defense it becomes your choice of how you want to repel such an agression, fight or flight, and for most victims neither was an option. In 90% of violent altercations the agressors will use overwheleming force to subdue their victims. In such a case I want the right tool at my disposal, that is my choice and my right !
Porter
I do have a few issues with your comment. The first and foremost is the word weapon!
A weapon is a device whos purpose is to apply or repel force.
Firearms are used in Canada primarrly for sporting purposes, target shooting, hunting, etc etc.
A weapon can almost be anything, a car, a bottle, a rope, a knife or your hands...
Another point is that in Canada, except for LEO, no one has a conceal carry permit !!!
However your point that a gun will enhance an agressive behavior is non sequator, power fear and greed are the root cause of an agressive behavior. The means by which such an agression is carried out, can range from sheer physical size and strenght to explosives!
In terms of defense it becomes your choice of how you want to repel such an agression, fight or flight, and for most victims neither was an option. In 90% of violent altercations the agressors will use overwheleming force to subdue their victims. In such a case I want the right tool at my disposal, that is my choice and my right !
Porter
Hey Korbel,
I think your post is very interesting. But while it might apply "on the street", it is certainly not true when a gun is used in home defense.
In the case of a home invasion, there is only one possible peaceful resolution: the intruder must leave as soon as he realizes someone is in the house!
If the intruder persists in staying in the home, he is the one escalating the situation and he should be considered as threatening your life.
It would be foolish to risk your life by trying to "negotiate" with a home invader. The people in the story I linked to above learned this at the price of their lives.
I think your post is very interesting. But while it might apply "on the street", it is certainly not true when a gun is used in home defense.
In the case of a home invasion, there is only one possible peaceful resolution: the intruder must leave as soon as he realizes someone is in the house!
If the intruder persists in staying in the home, he is the one escalating the situation and he should be considered as threatening your life.
Korbel said:Instead of working harder to resolve a confrontational situation without force the temptation of using a weapon at hand to resolve the issue is often too easy to deny.
It would be foolish to risk your life by trying to "negotiate" with a home invader. The people in the story I linked to above learned this at the price of their lives.
Immenant danger.
You have to demonstrate that you are in immenant danger before you can use force to defend yourself, even in your own home. To use a weapon of any sort you have to demonstrate that it was either readily at hand or that you had a chance to get to the weapon prior to the attack on your person from the intruder.
In Canada, if you kill or injure an intruder in your own home with a firearm, you must demontrate that previous to the attac from the intruder the reticted weapon was in a locked box with the ammunition in a separate locked box.
You have to demonstrate that you are in immenant danger before you can use force to defend yourself, even in your own home. To use a weapon of any sort you have to demonstrate that it was either readily at hand or that you had a chance to get to the weapon prior to the attack on your person from the intruder.
In Canada, if you kill or injure an intruder in your own home with a firearm, you must demontrate that previous to the attac from the intruder the reticted weapon was in a locked box with the ammunition in a separate locked box.
Hello Porter,Porter said:Korbel,
However your point that a gun will enhance an agressive behavior is non sequator, power fear and greed are the root cause of an agressive behavior. The means by which such an agression is carried out, can range from sheer physical size and strenght to explosives!
In terms of defense it becomes your choice of how you want to repel such an agression, fight or flight, and for most victims neither was an option. In 90% of violent altercations the agressors will use overwheleming force to subdue their victims. In such a case I want the right tool at my disposal, that is my choice and my right !
Porter
I know that just carrying a weapon, especially a gun, carries with it a psychology of power and seeming invulnerabilty that distorts the primal instinct of power, fear, and greed in all of us and tempts us to use an opportunity to release agressive instincts over more diplomatic resolution much more often than if we were not armed. Those who carry weapons are invovled in far more and more violent altercations and confrontations of all sorts than those who don't carry weapons including guns. The correlation is that more aggressive people are more likely to be armed and more likely to need one. I have never carried a weapon and have never needed one. Yet those I know who do carry weapons seem to be getting into physical confrontation frequently and seem to create the need for defense out of their own mind set of aggressive "defense" enhanced by the psychology of having "a tool" that gives them an advantage during disputes of any sort. In my opinion the presence of the weapon/gun distorts the psychology of their choices toward primal aggression simply because it is available...especially with young males.
Of course the best argument for having a weapon/gun is the prospect of being caught without the ability to defend yourself and being at someone else's mercy. It's terrifying. But the truth is that when someone wants to dominate you he/she isn't going to warn you about what is coming and you will be overwhelmed before you have any chance to make any choice at all. As my defense instructor said over and over, the best way to survive is to give the aggressor what they want. That sounds crazy in the most terrifying scenarios, but in the vast number of instances what the agressor wants is property/money...not you or your life.
You may be right that "90% of violent altercations the agressors will use overwhelming force to subdue their victims." Yes, it would be advantageous to have a more powerful weapon/gun in that case to have the edge and be able defend yourself succesfuly. But unless you know you are going into a situation with a high probability where you will need your gun you are very unlikely to have it with you since situations where you will need one are almost entirely unpredictable and the aggressor has already overwhelmed you before you can possibly make any choice.
The real non sequitur is the idea that I am making any reference to hunting or sports shooting; and I have never disputed the right of anyone to defend themselves. That inference is a diverison. As for permits I know plenty of people without criminal records and with them who don't worry about legalities when they want to have a gun available. People who want guns will get them one way or another...and it is far too easy despite any legal controls or regulations you can cite to do so.
Happy hunting,
Korbel
PS
I bet my Sharps model 1859 .58 calibre rifle is bigger than any gun you have...BOOM...WHO'S YOUR DADDY...lol.
Last edited:
J. Peterman said:In Canada, if you kill or injure an intruder in your own home with a firearm, you must demontrate that previous to the attac from the intruder the reticted weapon was in a locked box with the ammunition in a separate locked box.
This is incorrect. The storage of the weapon will have no bearing of the defense of self defense. (You may be charged with unsafe storage of a firearm, if the crown can demonstrate it was improperly stored. )
Either way, as was said above: better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Korbel said:Those who carry weapons are invovled in far more and more violent altercations and confrontations of all sorts than those who don't carry weapons including guns.
Or maybe the correlation is that people who feel the need to carry guns do so because they live in high crime neighborhoods, have high risk jobs (private detective, abortion doctor, bail bondsman, etc.), are victims of stalkers or wife abusers, attract attention due to their valuable property or money, etc.
Korbel said:when someone wants to dominate you he/she isn't going to warn you about what is coming and you will be overwhelmed before you have any chance to make any choice at all.
In the case of home invasions while you sleep, an alarm system would provide warning. IT would also give the thief the opportunity to escape unharmed.
Even in the USA, where citizens can carry concealed weapons, a victim could still have the element of surprise since most citizens aren't armed.
Last edited:
Gun ownership per say, isn't the issue, although personnally I would argue that the fewer guns present in circulation (legal or illegal), the lower the probability of having gun related incidents and/or crime. The problem is guns coupled with the "gun culture" mentality (i.e. the fascination for guns that leads to a sense of empowerment and paranoia, and is accompanied by the belief in vigilante justice, and it's corollary, the ever civilized death penalty...) present in the US. As a Canadian, I have absolutely no desire of seeing such a gun culture develop in Canada, and I certainly do not want laws passed allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 13K
