Defending oneself in one's own home?

[korbel]

Okay.

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.

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.

Hello Kepler,

I do not contest that the correlation of having a gun and high crime rates is true. But how does that explain the common presence of weapons/guns in much less violent neighborhoods. The best defense isn't a good offense, it's knowing there is trouble coming in the first place. Alarms, dogs, or whatever causes the perpetrator to feel he needs to flee is better than having a gun you can't get to because you had no warning and now you are under his/her control.

Yes,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

Ditto

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 possibility 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.

Hello JB,

Yes, that's a vital element of the dangerous psychology of owning a weapon/gun. People in the U.S. often hear about the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights and take it to mean they can not only own a gun but can act freely as they see fit with it when it comes to any preceivable threat. They take key misperceptions about their Constitutional rights and imbue them with a vigilante sense of justice they believe allows them to use violence even when the situation of a confrontation does not justify deadly force. I personally know one person who was amazed to discover he was guilty of 2nd degree attempted manslaughter for using excessive force against an unarmed threat at his home. Because of the gun culture and gun psychology so pervasive in the U.S. too many so-called law-abiding citizens have almost a gun sociopathy in their views of when using a gun is warranted. The presence of a gun is simply more likely to be detrimental to the owner than the chances they will ever have any real chance to use it to defend themselves. It may make one feel safe, but it will probably be useless when needed...unless one is hunting or shooting targets.

Get a dog,

Korbel

PS

If anyone could find reliable verified data showing how often owning a gun actually prevents a crime versus being a victim or there being an accident against friends, neighbors, loved ones, and innocent bystanders it would be most interesting. What is the factual correlation between the effectiveness and danger of owning a gun?

 

[Sox.at.six]

Korbel,

I am sorry but I must seriously disagree with you on almost all the points you are making in your recent posts. Based on all the research I have read, your assumptions do not match the facts. Though I feel your assumptions are in correct I do realize they are held by many intelligent people and this is a problem that can only be rectified by education. I appreciate your participation in this thread, but I really have to question what you are basing your opinions on.

Would the US Department of Justice meet your criteria for reliable and verified data?

If so, please see the following:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt


I can link you to many other research papers on the subject if you have the free time and the desire to read them for yourself.

Respectfully.

SOX

 

[Kepler]

Alarms, dogs, or whatever causes the perpetrator to feel he needs to flee is better than having a gun you can't get to because you had no warning and now you are under his/her control.

I fully agree that having the perpetrator flee is the best solution. The question is: if he doesn't flee, what is your solution? If he intends on doing you harm (raping you if you're a female occupant, killing you if you're a witness, etc.), will you rely on negotiation to dissuade him?

As for having no warning, I say again that a home alarm system will provide ample warning.

too many so-called law-abiding citizens have almost a gun sociopathy

I find it offensive to use such a broad brush to paint millions of law abiding Canadian and American citizens. How would you react if gun owners called non-gun owners "lily livered citizens viewing life through rose colored glasses"? Let's stay away from the name calling and personal insults.

The presence of a gun is simply more likely to be detrimental to the owner than the chances they will ever have any real chance to use it to defend themselves. ... If anyone could find reliable verified data

There are lots of studies out there, the problem is that they are usually funded by either anti-gun or pro-gun groups. A quick search will surely turn up a study to support anyone's political inclination on this issue.

Instead, how about another real life example: http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=132022

Does that count as a "real chance"?

 

[korbel]

No really.

I fully agree that having the perpetrator flee is the best solution. The question is: if he doesn't flee, what is your solution? If he intends on doing you harm (raping you if you're a female occupant, killing you if you're a witness, etc.), will you rely on negotiation to dissuade him?

As for having no warning, I say again that a home alarm system will provide ample warning.

I find it offensive to use such a broad brush to paint millions of law abiding Canadian and American citizens. How would you react if gun owners called non-gun owners "lily livered citizens viewing life through rose colored glasses"? Let's stay away from the name calling and personal insults.


There are lots of studies out there, the problem is that they are usually funded by either anti-gun or pro-gun groups. A quick search will surely turn up a study to support anyone's political inclination on this issue.

Instead, how about another real life example: http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=132022

Does that count as a "real chance"?

Hello Kepler,

Well, I am not sure if shooting a distracted dog measures up. Obviously your statement about negotiating against a rapist or killer is meant to be hyperbole at best. Who could take that statement seriously. Really. As for stereotyping gun owners...that's more hyperbole. Clearly I modify my painting to talk about a segment of gun owners when I say "some"..."too many"...a "portion" or "segement of "...to avoid mass stereotyping. But I do think there is a psychology that goes along with owning a gun that makes the owners more likely to choose a more deadly solution over a cooperative one...which varies to large degree depending on the individual concerned. So please don't infer I am painting "millions of law abiding Canadian and American citizens" unfairly. You know better or your sensitivities are leading to demaguogery...perhaps involuntarily...maybe.

Happy powder burns,

Korbel (antique gun owner)

PS

Do you have a gun bigger than mine...lol.

Sharps model 1859 .58 calibre rifle...known as a "Buffalo Gun"...BANG!.

 

[Kepler]

Well, I am not sure if shooting a distracted dog measures up.

It was about to kill that man. Without a gun, what could the good samaritain have done? Risked kicking it and getting hurt himself?

Obviously your statement about negotiating against a rapist or killer is meant to be hyperbole at best.

Not at all. Some people do break in with the intent to rape or leave no witnesses behind. What is your solution to dealing with these people?

Clearly I modify my painting to talk about a segment of gun owners when I say "some"..."too many"... [...] I do think there is a psychology that goes along with owning a gun

In one instance you say "some" in another you just talk generally.

I could likewise say that there is a psychology that goes along with gun control. It is the psychology that one need not worry about dangerous offenders because someone else will take care of the problem. It is the psychology that outlawing guns will somehow deter criminals from possessing guns. It is the psychology that the more restrictions, regulations and controls the state puts in place the better society will be. etc. I prefer to stay away from arm chair psychoanalysis.

 

[JustBob]

I've had conversations with Americans on a political forum a zillion times on this issue. While I'm sure that most gun owners are very responsible people, they also tend to be paranoid. I call this the "what if!" or the "just in case!" mentality. I know a guy who owns a number of guns, and posted a picture of one of his guns taped to the side of his bed. Where does this guy live? In Buffalo, by all accounts and he himself provided the stats, one of the safest city in the US. Did he ever have to use this gun? Nope. What is the probability that he will ever get to use it? He probably has a higher chance of being hit by lightning... So why the hell does he have a gun taped to his bed? "Just in case!". I mean jesus, is that really the way you want to live your life? Protecting yourself from any and all kinds of crimes, accidents and unforeseen catastrophic events is impossible (see "the rabid dog" argument...). If you feel the need to sleep with a gun taped to the side of your bed, than... errr... maybe you should move? In a bunker maybe?

Furthermore, the gun owners (who seem to know everything about every kind of weapon ever made), when discussing say the war in Iraq or those pesky "Islamofascists", are invariably those who will make assinine comments like "we have to get them before they get us!", or even worse, "let's nuke 'em!". Paranoia galore.

And then there's the problem of escalation, a sort of civilian arms race between the criminals and the respectable citizens. Gun related crime in the US (despite the fact that they incarcerate a higher percentage of their population than any other country on the planet) is much more prevalent than say, in Canada. Why is that? Well duh... When a criminal knows that there a distinct possibility that the house he wants to rob will have guns in it, well he's gonna bring a gun too. And when a discussion about a ban on semi-automatic weapons occurs, the prevailing argument from gun owners is "but then the criminals will have the bigger guns!".

Also, the violent crime rate in the US is 4-5 times higher than in Canada. You're not going to solve that by arming yourselves, you're gonna solve that by addressing the social issues that lead to crime. Here's an analogy:

A guy has one rat in his house, buys rat poison, kills the rat.
Next day, two rats show up. The guy buys a baseball bat and clobbers the two rats.
Next day, three rats show up. Guy buys a gun, and kills the three rats.
Next day, four rats show up. Guy buys a machine gun, and sprays the four rats dead.
Next day, five rats show up. Guy buys a bazooka and goes on a rampage, killing the rats and demolishing his house in the process.

On the second day, an intelligent, rational human being, would have tried to figure out why he has a rat problem in the first place and address the issue at the source.

 

[korbel]

Lol

It was about to kill that man. Without a gun, what could the good samaritain have done? Risked kicking it and getting hurt himself?

Hello Kepler,

The psychology of the anti-gun lobby is peace...DAMN...wouldn't that just suck...lol.

C'mon now, you know I wasn't saying the dog deserved a kiss. Besides I think your story makes my point also. Did the victim own a gun? If so he never got the chance to use it. The other guy was free to get his. Again, you will need enough time and opportunity to use a gun. The guy who got his was not even the target. He had time. If he had been the target he probably would have been dead though he owned a gun.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

Escalation.

And then there's the problem of escalation, a sort of civilian arms race between the criminals and the respectable citizens. Gun related crime in the US (despite the fact that they incarcerate a higher percentage of their population than any other country on the planet) is much more prevalent than say, in Canada. Why is that? Well duh... When a criminal knows that there a distinct possibility that the house he wants to rob will have guns in it, well he's gonna bring a gun too. And when a discussion about a ban on semi-automatic weapons occurs, the prevailing argument from gun owners is "but then the criminals will have the bigger guns!".

Hello JustBob,

Actually, I am prepared for the escalation. My nephew, a lieutenant in an armored unit, says I can borrow his M1A1 Abrams tank for a while. Now let the damn gun lobby call me a pissy little bitch...lol. I just hope none of them has a Cobra gunship...YIKES...odds are they do...DAMN!

Help mama,

Korbel

 

[coonan]

I hope all of you that intend on calling 911 have a good safe room to hide in.. By the time the police do arrive and figure it's safe your burglar will have ransacked your house, raped you women and/or dog and left.... Probably thanking you for rolling over and giving him the things you did.... Might as well start leaving your doors unlocked and the welcome mat out....

Heaven forbid that you live somewhere were police response time is 30 minutes or more... But I forgot, the city mentality is what's ruining this country because the city folk don't know what rural living is and can't believe that anyone living with a well and septic system or people that don't have cable, or high speed internet really want to live that way... They are the ones that think milk, corn and beef just appear not that people actually work to produce them....

Don't get me wrong you are free to believe what you want.. As am I...But it's a documented fact that the police are not tasked to protect and serve.... It has been written that way in several lawsuits that have been filed against the police.... Their job is to uphold the law... Period..

 

[Kepler]

I call this the "what if!" or the "just in case!" mentality. I know a guy who owns a number of guns, and posted a picture of one of his guns taped to the side of his bed.

I don't keep a gun by my bedside because I don't live in a high crime area. But I do keep insurance against earthquakes and fires. I know more people who've been robbed than people who've had their home damaged by earthquakes and fires combined.

C'mon now, you know I wasn't saying the dog deserved a kiss.

I never said that you said that. I did ask: what would he have done without a gun? I also asked: how would you deal with rapists and other dangerous criminals who break into homes?

The psychology of the anti-gun lobby is peace...DAMN...wouldn't that just suck...lol.

So is the psychology of the gun lobby. I want peace. But I recognise that not everyone wants peace.

 

[Porter]

JustBob,

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.

While I do agree that if there are fewer guns legal or illegal there would be fewer gun related issues, but there would certainly be an increase in violent agressions.

This doctrine of gun control, has led to a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

What I would prefer is a society that is free of violent behavior

Porter

 

[Porter]

Hi Korpel

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.

I see you interchange the word gun and weapon.. That might at the basis of our disagreement. There is a broad range of individuals who CC in the US from young adults to elderlies. Of the millions of Conceal Carry permit holders, you do not see a trend in violent agression because of carrying a gun, actually quite the contrary. The requirements for CC are stringent and the training is severe with agreat emphasis on when and how to use.

And the laws are quite harsh for unholstering in public.

The notion that a gun will make you power crazy is unfounded and there is no data to support your claim.

Ohh its not the size of the caliber, but the accuracy of the shot

I do agree that the best weapon in any situation is a cool head and common sense, but sometimes you need to repel force and please believe me when I say that words will not cut it when being fired upon.

Porter

 

[Porter]

Coonan,

Don't get me wrong you are free to believe what you want.. As am I...But it's a documented fact that the police are not tasked to protect and serve.... It has been written that way in several lawsuits that have been filed against the police.... Their job is to uphold the law... Period..

Well said!!!

Porter

 

[montreal_monk01]

I legally own a Kimber Covert Custom II.
I really hope I would never have to use it .. but for ultimate survival purposes, who knows what can happen.

 

[korbel]

No no no

Hi Korpel

The notion that a gun will make you power crazy is unfounded and there is no data to support your claim.

Ohh its not the size of the caliber, but the accuracy of the shot

I do agree that the best weapon in any situation is a cool head and common sense, but sometimes you need to repel force and please believe me when I say that words will not cut it when being fired upon.

Porter

Hello Porter,

I never said "power crazy" or meant any allusions to that condition. I said, not in precisely these words, that when someone has a GUN or a WEAPON ( as you like it) they are more prone to using it to resolve a confrontation with the "arms" at hand, a GUN or any other WEAPON, than to excercise every non-violent option. The basic pyschology of having a gun is that one is less likely to find a peaceful solution when a gun is present. I also never said words will always work. But too many people are willing to escalate a situation when they have a gun than if they didn't. Without the presence of a gun deescalationlaways has a chance.

Of course I am talking about common social disagreement or confrontations,
not defense against determined thieves or thugs. Most people who get killed by a gun know the the person who shot them and the incident is usually confrontation betwen familiars, not targeting by a complete stranger. Death from an armed stranger is far less common. The presence of guns simply makes it too easy to vent anger or rage by through lethal force. Without the presence of the gun this rage or anger would be far less deadly and destructive.

Fewer guns fewer deaths,

Korbel.

 

[montreal_monk01]

Totally agree, with you, the gents who favor the non-violent reaction/or at least a very cautious approach to violence made to us (I am like Ghandi on this one ;p): possessing a gun should not make us vulnerable to emotive counter-reaction. I was victim of 3 break-ins and never had to use my gun up to now:
First time, the thief was desesperately trying to find his way in the darkness of my house when I managed to luckily surprise him with a load of pepper spray in the face. The rest was just a question of mobilizing him with some non violent martial-art techniques while waiting after the cops.
Second time, was kind of awkward: I was sleeping when I heard a noise that sounded like someone thrown against a wall. It ended up being my ex girlfriend surprising the thief and giving him hard time (the princess was a long time karate chick and the result was quite disgusting...anyway).
I've never seen a thief get beaten that way ...When the police arrived, they had hard time believing that the thief was the one who had to be arrested ;p
Third time was plain stupidity from the thief: at that time, I had a big and deep swimming pool closed to the fences of my house. The swimming pool was so closed to the fences that his majesty the crook somehow managed to jump right into the pool in the middle of total darkness. Problem is that he did not know how to swim....so you have the rest of the picture!! We managed to save him from drowning...but while waiting for the cops, that same ex-girlfriend who was into martial arts...was proceeding with some tough interragatory. I even had to intervene diplomatically to ease down the tension..and for the 1st time of my life, I even joked with a thief ->it's because the thief, at some point, was telling me that he had never met such sweet and feminine looking lady with that much physical power.

 

[JustBob]

JustBob,

This doctrine of gun control, has led to a dramatic increase in criminal activities.

What I would prefer is a society that is free of violent behavior

Porter

Move to Canada. More gun control, fewer gun related crimes, 4-5 times less violent crime, and we don't need to incarcerate over 2% of our population in order to achieve that.

As I stated earlier, crime is a result of failure to address social issues. By arguing that "we need guns to protect ourselves", you're actually admitting to social failure. You're applying a patch, not addressing the problem at the source. See the rat analogy.

 

[JustBob]

On the other hand I think I would be a lot safer at home in the case of another break-in if I took a self-defence or some martial arts class.

t76

Just invest in some titles from the extensive catalog of martial films produced by the famous Shaw Brothers Hong-Kong studio. Start with "The 36th Chamber of Shaolin". It will also provide spiritual guidance.

 

[Sox.at.six]

A lot of people in this thread are making statements about guns and violence, but I am wondering what you are basing those opinions on. It seems very easy to draw a correlation between the large number of guns in America and the large amounts of violent crime here as well. It is not that simple though and if you compare America to many other industrialized nations you find that this theory does not hold up. The American problem of crime is somewhat unique.

America does have very high rates of violent crime, but as I have said before the amount of guns present does not really have much to do with this. Violent crime is caused by many different things, but the availability of weapons of a certain type is not one of them.

I have made the statements below based on research from:
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/ U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en&_ts= U.S. Census Bureau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#_note-gss Wikipedia (for lack of a better source for US gun ownership data)

I avoid sites like the NRA and the Brady Campaign, because they are both lobbyists groups with clear agendas. They distort the facts and omit those that don’t support their case whether it is pro or anti gun ownership.

Here are some numbers to consider in this discussion:
Around 8.9 millon violent crimes are committed each year in US. (A lot.) But only around 10% (890,000) involve a firearm. So, even if guns disappeared over night it would be safe to assume the other 8 million violent crimes would still take place. Would the people who committed the 890,000 gun crimes reintegrate into society and become honest citizens because they now lack a gun or would they use alternative methods like all the other criminals?

62,200 times a year Americans use a firearm to defend themselves against violent crime. 35% of those times or about 22,000 times they are confronting a violent criminal who also has a firearm. I would hate to have to tell those folks that they don’t need a gun to live in a civil society and they should just avoid confrontation. In these confrontations with violent criminals the victim only fired 38% of the time, the majority of the time displaying they weapon was enough to convince the attacker to cease. It has been said in this thread that owning a gun makes people psychologically eager to use violence, but why then when presented with the seemingly perfect opportunity to use deadly force do most gun owners choose not to fire? Maybe legal gun owners just want to protect themselves as they claim and maybe they are not blood thirsty killers as they are being made out to be? You are 2.5 times more likely to be injured if you attack your assailant with any weapon other than a firearm. Sorry to everybody with your baseball bats and kung fu skills, but the firearm is better protection.

So, some might say that you are almost 14 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime with a firearm than you are to use a firearm to defend yourself against one. But, this is not actually correct. While any one in the general population can potentially be the victim of a violent crime, only those who own guns can actually have the opportunity to use on in self defense. So, if only 36.5% of US households have guns and an average household is 2.59 people ….. After a bit of math we see that people who live in a household with guns are only about 5 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime with a firearm than they are to use a firearm to defend themselves against one.

Firearms kill: 29,569 Americans a year, but the vast majority 16,750 of those are suicides. Does owning a gun make you depressed also? Does having a clothes line in your yard make you want to hang yourself? Banning firearms won’t stop most of those people from trying to kill themselves.
Firearms injure: 69,825 Americans a year, but only 3,082 of those injuries are intentional self-inflicted. A lot of people are getting hurt it seems, but we can also see that people who attempt suicide with a gun are usually successful.

So, ignoring suicides for a minute, it would seem that the average American has a 0.3% chance of being the victim of a violent crime with a firearm and a 0.028% chance of being killed or injured with a firearm. Those are some scary numbers.

Motor Vehicle accidents kill: 45,113 Americans a year.
Motor Vehicle accidents injure: 2,864,022 Americans a year.
You are 29 times more likely to be killed or injured by a motor vehicle than by a firearm in America.
My legal guns make you nervous so you want to take them away, but you still don’t mind sharing the roads with me? To me that doesn’t make sense.
When politicians talk about making the “streets safe” why are they always talking about guns? Why aren’t they talking about getting drunks, speeders, and road ragers off the streets? I guess guns scare people more for some reason and it’s sexier to talk about cracking down on guns than it is on cars. It gets the voters out and that is what it’s all about.

I don’t like being spoon fed what to think by anyone. Educate yourself and then decide if you feel the same way in your beliefs. I would think in Canada with a much lower violent crime rate as some of you rightfully point out, your chances of being hurt or attacked with a firearm are much smaller. Do you really need to ban them all to make yourself feel safer?

Keep in mind that that none of the death and injury numbers above take into account whether these were legally owned guns or not. We are just assuming for simplicity they all are, though in reality a large portion of them are not. So, if all these guns were legally owned and as I calculated earlier that 38.5 million households in the US have guns, then let us assume each household has one licensed gun owner. If 79,562 people are killed or injured each year by these legal gun owners, that would mean about 0.2% of all legal gun owners are dangerous and irresponsible people assuming that each person was responsible for only one death or injury. I wonder what percentage of the general public could also be classified as dangerous and irresponsible? Well, using the same logic if 8.9 million violent crimes occur in a population of 280 million, I guess I should be afraid of 3% of the general population? Could gun owners actually be less dangerous as a group then the general population? Perhaps all the background checks and police interviews help in that regard? If I’m afraid of less than 1% of any group should I legislate against them as a whole or should I deal with the individual offenders?

I am glad some of you feel safe with out a weapon and that the police come to your house in two minutes if you call them, but not everyone has that luxury. Laws against firearms affect all citizens not just those who live in big cities or those who have financial means to live in a nice neighborhood.

Tomorrow I will tell my story about the one time I almost had to use a firearm in self defense. As I said before, it will most likely scare the crap out of most of you but I’ve said enough tonight already.

Respectfully.
SOX