Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Many here are against guns/weapons. However don't have a viable solution to self defense.

What do you do if your home is invaded and your family is endanger, which happens every 30 seconds in America.

What if your in your car and being assaulted, car jacked with your family in the car?

With the police on the run lately, and they only show up after the crime.

How do you defend yourself?

There's a problem with your opening sentence, very few people (I actually can only think of one and he doesn't post anymore) here are against guns. The people you clash with on guns generally want better gun control/laws, not the confiscation of every weapon in America.

Many want them gone though.

Like who?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Many here are against guns/weapons. However don't have a viable solution to self defense.

What do you do if your home is invaded and your family is endanger, which happens every 30 seconds in America.

What if your in your car and being assaulted, car jacked with your family in the car?

With the police on the run lately, and they only show up after the crime.

How do you defend yourself?



Well, apparently, if you're from Germany you just cry like a wussy.

I don't know if I could be trusted with a gun because I'd straight up just shoot a thief/home invader in the face and then I'd end up in prison, I've seen it happen before.

Depends on the state, no?

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know if I could be trusted with a gun because I'd straight up just shoot a thief/home invader in the face and then I'd end up in prison, I've seen it happen before.

That is actually ok.

Well I'll play the target here- I'd like guns mostly removed from the US, much as they are here. Of course, that wouldn't be something done quickly and in isolation; it would come after a very elongated period of cultural change where the fanatic reverence for the gun is reduced in the US, so it's not in a society where the rate at which people carry, draw and are prepared to fire guns is so absurdly high compared to any other western nation.

Hence you would not have such an issue of criminals with guns, and you wouldn't have gun-armed intruders breaking into your house.

Not that I believe, in any case, that having a gun stops people with guns targeting you- it just leads to an arms race.

Originally posted by Star428
Well, apparently, if you're from Germany you just cry like a wussy.

Don't worry, these things basically don't happen in Germany.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That is actually ok.

But it is not though, just in my city alone I've seen cases of people getting in trouble for shooting home invaders. One was a guy who was in trouble because he emptied an entire clip into someone and it was seen as excessive. I could fully see myself, in the heat of the moment and being scared for my life, emptying every last bullet into a guy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't worry, these things basically don't happen in Germany.

Yes they do. Its just not popular to talk about it. Well their socialist/progressive media doesn't like too talk about it......much like our media.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well I'll play the target here- I'd like guns mostly removed from the US, much as they are here. Of course, that wouldn't be something done quickly and in isolation; it would come after a very elongated period of cultural change where the fanatic reverence for the gun is reduced in the US, so it's not in a society where the rate at which people carry, draw and are prepared to fire guns is so absurdly high compared to any other western nation.

Hence you would not have such an issue of criminals with guns, and you wouldn't have gun-armed intruders breaking into your house.

Not that I believe, in any case, that having a gun stops people with guns targeting you- it just leads to an arms race.

Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

I mean I honestly have no problem when you say get rid of guns. The only thing is..you can only do it if you can do it in a way that guarantee's we won't end up in a situation where the only people in the country with guns are now the criminals. In other words, the solution has to involve a way of preventing people from illegally getting guns in the country.

Otherwise, our own people will perpetuate this, because you will have the people who like guns but are not criminals...buying their guns now from criminals, since they can't get them anywhere else but criminals can.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

so basically all laws are useless because they are sometimes broken, right?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

The argument of "all or nothing" is silly when it comes to laws.

Do people run through red lights? Yes. Does that mean we should do away with traffic lights because some people choose to not obey that law?

edit: Bashar beat me to it

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

Literally speaking, no.

Practically speaking, countries with gun control laws have far less gun violence than those without them- though as I have said before, really this is down to the laws reflecting/encouraging cultural shifts.

Like Bardock says, this sort of thing doesn't happen here- he says it for Germany, I say it for the UK. For gun armed intruders to break into houses here is exceptionally rare. It's not a problem that needs solving- and even if it was, guns wouldn't solve it.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes they do. Its just not popular to talk about it. Well their socialist/progressive media doesn't like too talk about it......much like our media.

There are 0.2 (per 100.000) gun homicides in Germany per year, as opposed to 3.5 in the US. So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US.

Originally posted by Robtard
The argument of "all or nothing" is silly when it comes to laws.

Do people run through red lights? Yes. Does that mean we should do away with traffic lights because some people choose to not obey that law?

edit: Bashar beat me to it

Kind of a bad example tbh.

With the way some cops here act I'd be uncomfortable if they were the only ones legally allowed guns, and I don't even own any guns.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are 0.2 (per 100.000) gun homicides in Germany per year, as opposed to 3.5 in the US. So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US.

your conclusion if false. bad math.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are 0.2 (per 100.000) gun homicides in Germany per year, as opposed to 3.5 in the US. So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US.

And look at the population difference

80 million vs 320 million.

yes TI bardock's math didnt account for population difference. gun homicides occur far more frequently compared to germany than bardock stated. so you have no reason to mock and gloat. his mistake was that he drastically understated how incorrect you are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are 0.2 (per 100.000) gun homicides in Germany per year, as opposed to 3.5 in the US. So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US.


And America has a population over 300 Million vs Germany's 83 Million. SO yes. Things will happen here more because there are MORE people.

And not all Home Invasions involve the invader using a gun.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes TI bardock's math didnt account for population difference. gun homicides occur far more frequently compared to germany than bardock stated. so you have no reason to mock and gloat.



I always knew you were smarter then Bardock

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And look at the population difference

80 million vs 320 million. Originally posted by Flyattractor

And America has a population over 300 Million vs Germany's 83 Million. SO yes. Things will happen here more because there are MORE people.

And not all Home Invasions involve the invader using a gun.




P-per 100,000....

"So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US."

your conclusion was false. deal with it. it's much more than 18. i know what you meant but you worded it poorly.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"So yes, this does happen almost 18 times as often in the US."

your conclusion was false. deal with it. it's much more than 18

Yeah, I took your quote out, cause you were correct.

so...do the proper math.

Well we do have more people, but not exactly 18 times more people.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so...do the proper math.
Okay, this happens 72 more often in the US than in Germany

Originally posted by Surtur
Well we do have more people, but not exactly 18 times more people.

per 100,000 population, u.s. has 18 times more gun homicides than germany. thats what he meant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, this happens 72 more often in the US than in Germany

Did your calculator overheat in this rushed quest for facts session?

Originally posted by Surtur
With the way some cops here act I'd be uncomfortable if they were the only ones legally allowed guns, and I don't even own any guns.

Well cops don't carry guns in my country. You see, this is all about culture; American cops have to carry guns because the US is a gun-heavy culture., The problem is, a lot of US cops just aren't very good with their guns- again, quick to draw, quick to fire. It's close to inevitable when gun usage is so deeply engrained at all levels. And then the arms race goes on, as a lot of US police forces become increasingly militarised, and the the criminals do the same,m and so on.

That's why I said I would not propose just instantly taking all guns away from the US- it has to be part of a very long process of cultural change.

-

And yes, let's just nip this intellectual failure in the bud- Bardock was talking of rates not raw numbers, so saying the US has a higher population is irrelevant. Let's not go any further down that blind alley.

the following has been exposed as fabricated nonesense and we can all move on. thank you bardock. (72 times fml)

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes they do. Its just not popular to talk about it. Well their socialist/progressive media doesn't like too talk about it......much like our media.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And look at the population difference

80 million vs 320 million. Originally posted by Flyattractor

And America has a population over 300 Million vs Germany's 83 Million. SO yes. Things will happen here more because there are MORE people.

And not all Home Invasions involve the invader using a gun.


Originally posted by Surtur
Well we do have more people, but not exactly 18 times more people.

Okay, so just so we are clear, this is really embarrassing for you guys, but I'm not sure you are aware of it.

The number I used was how often it happens out of 100,000 people. This is the most fair (and the better looking stat for your side of the story). By looking at this stat we see how likely it is to happen to you. So in the US you are 18 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than in Germany.

Like Bashar pointed out, there are actually 72 times as many gun homicides in the US, but as you pointed out it has a bigger population, so we shouldn't count that against it.

I get the point about the correction in rates, I just was noting that it would actually still make the US look bad, given our population is not 18 times as large so if we did have 18 times that many..well, you get what I'm saying. So I don't see it as embarrassing. Well for me anyways, can't speak on the intent of others.

As for no cops carrying guns. As I said, I'd be all for it, as long as we could also make sure none of the criminals are carrying any. This is not like a stop light or drugs, I can't kill someone else with a red light and the only way I'm killing someone with a drug is if I tamper with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, so just so we are clear, this is really embarrassing for you guys, but I'm not sure you are aware of it.

The number I used was how often it happens out of 100,000 people. This is the most fair (and the better looking stat for your side of the story). By looking at this stat we see how likely it is to happen to you. So in the US you are 18 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than in Germany.

Like Bashar pointed out, there are actually 72 times as many gun homicides in the US, but as you pointed out it has a bigger population, so we shouldn't count that against it.

And you do realize the area's that have all these homicides are Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit and Baltimore. Cities where the liberal policies failed, most of these homicides and murders are black on black crime. So its obvious what is going on.

You can never make sure that no criminals carry guns, but I would advocate that the UK example shows that this is not the issue you worry it would be- in the right culture.

Originally posted by Surtur
I get the point about the correction in rates, I just was noting that it would actually still make the US look bad, given our population is not 18 times as large so if we did have 18 times that many..well, you get what I'm saying. So I don't see it as embarrassing.

only if you post the total gun homicides in comparison would it be unfair. per 100,000 population eliminates that. compelling enough for me to easily dismiss anyone who claims that germany has any sort of significant gun homicide problem when compared to the u.s. (thats what sprung this whole tangent)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can never make sure that no criminals carry guns, but I would advocate that the UK example shows that this is not the issue you worry it would be- in the right culture.

Yes, but that ship has sailed in this country. If you did that here..we'd definitely be facing a situation of criminals being the only ones armed and not in small numbers.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And you do realize the area's that have all these homicides are Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit and Baltimore. Cities where the liberal policies failed, most of these homicides and murders are black on black crime. So its obvious what is going on.

citation?

I don't know about specifically black on black, but as someone who lives in Chicago, it's definitely 99% gang related. But we do have more then just black gangs here. But in some parts of the city the gangs are utterly out of control. They don't just kill because they have a problem with someone. They kill as friggin initiation rites.

I remember hearing on the radio about some six graders who came up with some kind of facebook type program for the school to keep in touch over the summer because they were afraid they'd be killed by gun violence over the summer and thus without the program they thought the last day of school might be the last day they hear from these students.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but that ship has sailed in this country. If you did that here..we'd definitely be facing a situation of criminals being the only ones armed and not in small numbers.

It will just take time, is all. A long period of slowly stripping away the gun culture. When you guys finally get a few more decent gun control laws in, even as a token gesture, then the process has started.

People used to say health care would never shift in the US but it has started that long journey now. I am sure it will happen eventually for guns as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It will just take time, is all. A long period of slowly stripping away the gun culture. When you guys finally get a few more decent gun control laws in, even as a token gesture, then the process has started.

People used to say health care would never shift in the US but it has started that long journey now. I am sure it will happen eventually for guns as well.

I think perhaps you underestimate the strength of the gun culture here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It will just take time, is all. A long period of slowly stripping away the gun culture. When you guys finally get a few more decent gun control laws in, even as a token gesture, then the process has started.

People used to say health care would never shift in the US but it has started that long journey now. I am sure it will happen eventually for guns as well.

Monumental difference between giving everyone universal healthcare vs taking the second ammendent away and then trying to take peoples guns.

We have a slogan here called

http://www.weaponstickers.com/images/full/5.5x3.5_cati_AR15_w.png

Come on, TI. Like you'd start shooting innocent people if all guns were outright banned and Fed came knocking on your door.

i made this post on another forum



basically sums up what i think should be done about guns. someone told me there already is an fbi database of gun owners.. but from what i've seen it's not the kind of system i'm talking about, which requires gun owners to submit proof of possession of the firearm they purchased periodically for the entire duration of the time they own it. i don't get how people would continue to get away with "straw purchases" and things like that if this kind of registry system were in place.

I would like to see more gun control if not getting away with guns all together. At the least I think getting a license to own a gun should be as complex as getting a driver's license.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would like to see more gun control if not getting away with guns all together. At the least I think getting a license to own a gun should be as complex as getting a driver's license.

For me I'd say even more complex then a driver's license.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on, TI. Like you'd start shooting innocent people if all guns were outright banned and Fed came knocking on your door.

Guns cannot be banned without a constitutional amendment. Bar that, I ain't giving them up. So anyone who came looking for them would be breaking the law and I would be enforcing it.

Originally posted by Surtur
For me I'd say even more complex then a driver's license. I agree but I think that would be a good first step at least.

I think everyone should have their guns taken away from them except for me.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I think everyone should have their guns taken away from them except for me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Guns cannot be banned without a constitutional amendment. Bar that, I ain't giving them up. So anyone who came looking for them would be breaking the law and I would be enforcing it.

Certain guns/gun types have been banned before. eg .50 caliber rifles are illegal to purchase in California iirc, though those who had them prior to the ban were grandfathered in.

Originally posted by Robtard
Certain guns/gun types have been banned before. eg .50 caliber rifles are illegal to purchase in California iirc, though those who had them prior to the ban were grandfathered in.

Actually, you still can buy .50cal rifles in California, just has to be through a trust..I saw them at the gun show a few weeks ago.

Didn't know there was a loophole.

Like Ush said, without a massive shift in gun culture, you can't just take away all of the guns in America.

Outside of America, countries without guns do just fine. There is some gun crime, but it's few and far between here in Ireland for instance. And it's almost unheard of that someone breaking in to your home, or trying to carjack you (which is rare itself), is done by anyone carrying a gun.

They're usually just there to grab your money/telly or whatever; not murder your family.

From what I have seen in America though, I do hope gun culture does change to at least make it harder for people to obtain guns, which would hopefully cut down on gun crime. I lived in Canada for almost three years, and the difference felt like night and day.

I think the obvious answer to this issue is to devote more focus and resources into cloning so that we can resurrect Bruce Lee. I think the world would be a much safer place if everyone had their own personal, Bruce Lee bodyguard.

Seriously though, guns are here to stay in, America. I think devoting time and energy on outlawing guns is a waste of resources...,much like the failed, war on drugs. I don't think there is a way to ever make it impossible for someone to acquire a gun illegally. The black markets economics works just like any other economic market, there is supply and demand. There may be ways to make it harder for someone to obtain a gun illegally but i don't think there is anything we can do to remove that option entirely

I think better enforcing gun laws and finding ways to make gun owners more accountable for their firearms is the only practical place to begin in fighting this issue. I fully support the ability to own a firearm but i certainly think their needs to be more stringent restrictions. If we have to study and practice driving in order to acquire a driving license i don't see why one shouldnt have to do the same in a firearms permit.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

In the UK where guns are mostly blanket banned the criminals who break into houses (mostly drug addicts are serial burglars)are almost entirely different from those who carry guns (organised crime members and gang members).

Car jacking is almost non existent here due to limited access to guns and in years where cases have spiked have tended to be localised due to large proportions being carried out by the same group until they are caught.

Car jacking does not really involve deaths here, not many happen and even less happen involving a death.

Home invasion, different story.

i mean honestly it seems a bit crazy to compare the united states to england or some european country... just from a logistical pov

america has a few things that those other countries don't

i.e. we're not an island, we have 2 massive borders to patrol and access to both the atlantic and pacific oceans. i mean they can't stop the cartels from running drugs across the border but somehow when we ban guns they'll be able to stop them from running guns? i just don't see it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i mean honestly it seems a bit crazy to compare the united states to england or some european country... just from a logistical pov

america has a few things that those other countries don't

i.e. we're not an island, we have 2 massive borders to patrol and access to both the atlantic and pacific oceans. i mean they can't stop the cartels from running drugs across the border but somehow when we ban guns they'll be able to stop them from running guns? i just don't see it.


You realise far more guns go from America to Mexico than the other way round don't you? Some 70% of all drug cartel weaponry is from the US and a chunk of it was sanctioned by the ATF and CIA.

yea i do realize that... because right now guns are legal and thus a common commodity in the united states. so that really doesn't address the point i was trying to make.

I don't like guns, and I would like to see better procedures for keeping them away from criminals. But my problem isn't that guns exist in the US. My problem is that the gun laws don't draw the line. You want a handgun or hunting rifle? Fine. Do you need an assault rifle or extended magazines? No you don't.

Only pussies are afraid of a gun-less world.
I personally think it would be awesome.
Why? Machete fight!!!!!!

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Only pussies are afraid of a gun-less world.
I personally think it would be awesome.
Why? Machete fight!!!!!!

Only an clueless person would think the world will ever be gunless.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Only an clueless person would think the world will ever be gunless.
How do you feel about machete fights though

Here's my philosophy on having a gun for self-defense. I'm only speaking for myself here.

I don't expect to ever be held at gunpoint, though I know it's very possible with all the guns in this country. But if it happens, I doubt having a gun would help because I'm not going to always have my gun handy, if I had one I'd keep it safely locked up (and it's very unlikely I'll get to it if someone just breaks into my house/apartment), and I know enough about myself to know I'm probably not a great shot when I'm frightened, so I don't really see the use of a gun for myself, at least not for self-defense.

I'll probably eventually get one for hunting and sport shooting though. That shit's fun.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Here's my philosophy on having a gun for self-defense. I'm only speaking for myself here.

I don't expect to ever be held at gunpoint, though I know it's very possible with all the guns in this country. But if it happens, I doubt having a gun would help because I'm not going to always have my gun handy, if I had one I'd keep it safely locked up (and it's very unlikely I'll get to it if someone just breaks into my house/apartment), and I know enough about myself to know I'm probably not a great shot when I'm frightened, so I don't really see the use of a gun for myself, at least not for self-defense.

I'll probably eventually get one for hunting and sport shooting though. That shit's fun.
Can't go wrong with a machete

Wow this is pretty interesting.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/gay-open-carry-group-kicked-out-of-gay-pride-rally-due-to-psychological-harm/

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a problem with your opening sentence, very few people (I actually can only think of one and he doesn't post anymore) here are against guns. The people you clash with on guns generally want better gun control/laws, not the confiscation of every weapon in America.

Well actually, I'm one more of those people that believe that Americans no longer need guns. There are far more Police officers these days than when the 2nd Amendment was passed. Countries that prohibit their citizens from carrying guns are less likely to have people being killed by guns, and that's a hard cold fact. I am completely against people being able to purchase fire arms. Hunting animals for sport should be abolished as well. I mean it's not as if we don't have enough ecotones spread all over the world due to the destruction of entire animal habitats. This also leads to more innocent animals being killed by Police that are unable to deal with wild bears, and other powerful animals running through cities. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns make it much easier for this to happen.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?

No, but it makes it a lot more difficult for your average student to get their irresponsible hands on one. How often have you really had to use a gun? How often have you even had to physically defend yourself as an adult?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Only pussies are afraid of a gun-less world.
I personally think it would be awesome.
Why? Machete fight!!!!!!

evidently you have never been to Vietnam

Originally posted by Shinobi Popcorn
I don't like guns, and I would like to see better procedures for keeping them away from criminals. But my problem isn't that guns exist in the US. My problem is that the gun laws don't draw the line. You want a handgun or hunting rifle? Fine. Do you need an assault rifle or extended magazines? No you don't.

I agree with this

can somebody please give me the laymans terms of the 2nd ? amendment concerning the right to bear arms

and what those arms range from

Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
I agree with this

can somebody please give me the laymans terms of the 2nd ? amendment concerning the right to bear arms

and what those arms range from

The interpretation of that is exactly what people disagree on.

Obama coming after guns again, this time its against people on social security.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama coming after guns again, this time its against people on social security.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html#page=1

Specifically for people who were deemed by the state to not be able to take care of themselves/their own affairs.

Let me ask you this, if there was a man (we'll call him "Bob" who was not mentally fit to care for himself, do you think Bob should be allowed to own a gun?

Has anyone who has been on ss killed anyone with a gun?

I have no idea, I would imagine that there are deaths/murders by people who were or are on SS, considering the high amount of gun violence in the US.

That's not the point though. I ask again, do you think someone who is labeled not mentally fit enough to feed themselves and pay bills, being mentally fit enough to own a gun?

This is about elderly, when is the last time an elderly people went on a run rampage?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is about elderly, when is the last time an elderly people went on a run rampage?

You've dodged my question twice. Anyhow.

Again, that isn't really the point. How many Toddlers killed people with M18 claymores? Would you give a Toddler a claymore because that number was zero or just a few?

Comparing toddlers with claymores to senior citizens with guns

It was ridiculous to show the ridiculousness of your reasoning. But again, missing the point. It's about people who are not deemed capable of caring for themselves, yet somehow allowing them guns and the responsibility that comes with that is okay.

"You can't be trusted in feeding yourself or paying the water bill, but sure, keep your gun, you've not shot yourself or someone else yet."

Oh lord.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

No, not trying to be.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like who?

Canadians.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was ridiculous to show the ridiculousness of your reasoning. But again, missing the point. It's about people who are not deemed capable of caring for themselves, yet somehow allowing them guns and the responsibility that comes with that is okay.

"You can't be trusted in feeding yourself or paying the water bill, but sure, keep your gun, you've not shot yourself or someone else yet."

Vary true. Some people (probably a lot of people) should not have guns. If someone wants a gun, it should be mandatory that they receive training and keep that training up. When the constitution was written, everyone knew how to handle a gun, but these days most people don't.

I agree with Robtard. If you can't take care of yourself, you probably can't take care of a gun.

From the article: "He is irritable and antisocial, he said, but not dangerous."

Someone clearly doesn't know the DSM definition of antisocial.

Excuses. Excuses. Just because you cannot do you own finances does not make you ineligible to handle a gun in your own home.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Vary true. Some people (probably a lot of people) should not have guns. If someone wants a gun, it should be mandatory that they receive training and keep that training up. When the constitution was written, everyone knew how to handle a gun, but these days most people don't. u

I don't know about that.

Back then, friendly fire happened all the time. Not to mention the infamous duels

Personally, I think there "should" be safety and competency standards. Pragmatically speaking.

As is, current laws are kind of worthless, imo. For example, I know a guy, who carried a gun into a bar on the first day he got his permit. He has one drink too many, and drives home with another drunken friend. At his apartment, he takes the clip out of the handgun and gives it to his unlicenced friend. It still has a bullet in the chamber. Drunken idiot friend, who knows nothing about guns and thought it unloaded, points at a wall, pulls trigger, makes hole in wall.

The end result is the guy who discharged the weapon gets off light and loses his right to ever own a handgun, which is as it should be.

However, the guy who put it in his hand when he should have known better got to keep his permit and weapons. That's ****ed up. His role was so much worse, imo, but not according to the laws of his state.

Here's the Canadian gun law works:

You gotta write a test and do some hands on with guns before you can purchase hunting rifles and shotguns and 22s (some smgs too) Then you wait a couple weeks for your license.

Then you have to write a different test to be able to purchase handguns and assault rifles. Those specific guns are tied to your name and are in the database. This is your restricted license. You also are supposed to have any gun locked up in your trunk and with restricted you are pretty much only allowed to carry them to a gun range, legally. Think you have to join a gun club too for that.
I think any gun less than 2 feet also falls under restricted.

In both cases you aren't allowed to have more than 5 bullets in any gun except 22s. All the magazines you can buy with a higher capacity are plugged too.

While it's kind of gay for the responsible gun owner, the types of laws in place would make it harder to acquire guns if it were in the States and harder to have so many murder rampages.



That being said, I have a shotgun right next to my bed just in case some Indian breaks in.

The proper term is Aboriginal Canadian, okay?

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
The proper term is Aboriginal Canadian, okay? You part Injun?

So since this topic was asking how one would defend themselves I don't think this next discussion is too far off topic, it somewhat pertains to the idea of self defense:

I am asking if people think a man has the right to defend himself from a woman and to what extent. Let us say a man says something rude to his wife and she punches him in the face once. The husband looks at her for a second or two and then reels back and punches her in the face once. Did the husband have the right to strike back?

Would you guys be more disturbed by seeing a woman punch a man or a man punch a woman?

Originally posted by Surtur
So since this topic was asking how one would defend themselves I don't think this next discussion is too far off topic, it somewhat pertains to the idea of self defense:

I am asking if people think a man has the right to defend himself from a woman and to what extent. Let us say a man says something rude to his wife and she punches him in the face once. The husband looks at her for a second or two and then reels back and punches her in the face once. Did the husband have the right to strike back?

Would you guys be more disturbed by seeing a woman punch a man or a man punch a woman?

If she keeps coming at him, then yeah.

If she hit him once, then stops, it's no longer self defense to hit her back in the legal sense. Just like when two guys do that, they both get dragged away by the police.

But as to how I'd "feel".. Well, is this a regular woman, or Chyna vs average guy? Is he threatened by her, or just looking to "even the score" and teach her a lesson?

Self defense means just that: defense. You wouldn't chase after a guy and beat him down after a fights over just to prove a point and call it "defense", any more then you'd shoot a guy in the back who's running away..

I'm not asking about in a legal sense, just trying to get an idea of what people would find acceptable. Would striking back one time be acceptable to you?

I just think about that kid from the Florida college who got released from the football team for punching a female, though in the video she punches him first. She received no punishment.

In your scenario the wife was wrong to punch the husband, and the husband was wrong to punch the wife. Now we have to look at severity, statistically in physical abuse men abusing women ends much more often with a trip to the hospital or even death than vice versa.

Of course, everyone has the right to defend themselves within reason, but a 2 second delay before punching is not defending oneself, it's retribution.

Ultimately no one should hit no one else, but a man hitting a woman is much more likely to have serious consequences.

I see, so it would be more understandable if the punch had come immediately? I can understand this, since then you could argue the person reacted on instinct and didn't really sit there and make a conscious decision.

But what about slaps, not punches? I'm sure we've all seen the cliche movie where the guy says something rude and he doesn't get punched, but slapped. In this case, should there be retaliation, even if it is of the instinctual type?

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so it would be more understandable if the punch had come immediately? I can understand this, since then you could argue the person reacted on instinct and didn't really sit there and make a conscious decision.

But what about slaps, not punches? I'm sure we've all seen the cliche movie where the guy says something rude and he doesn't get punched, but slapped. In this case, should there be retaliation, even if it is of the instinctual type?

Generally I find it hard to view a punch as self defense. Punches are there in order to attack, trying to restrain someone that would be different. But yeah, punching makes some sense in two scenarios 1) you acted on instinct or reflex or 2) you felt you had to fight to protect yourself (of course that would then have to be shown if you actually hurt someone significantly).

There should never be physical retaliation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally posted by Surtur
I see, so it would be more understandable if the punch had come immediately? I can understand this, since then you could argue the person reacted on instinct and didn't really sit there and make a conscious decision.

But what about slaps, not punches? I'm sure we've all seen the cliche movie where the guy says something rude and he doesn't get punched, but slapped. In this case, should there be retaliation, even if it is of the instinctual type?

Calling the police so you have good, solid evidence for getting that restraining order and/or during divorce proceedings is about the only acceptable retaliation in the case of slaps.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
You part Injun?

God no

Being part injun makes you a better shot.

If the man is obviously bigger and stronger than the woman, I don't feel he has the right to punch the woman in self defense. Unless she's going after the goodies, there is no need to defend.

If Chyna punches a man who is not a body builder or wrestler, he has the right to punch her back in self defense.

Basically what I'm saying is someone who is clearly stronger shouldn't punch back. That goes for any combination of genders.

Originally posted by Shinobi Popcorn
If the man is obviously bigger and stronger than the woman, I don't feel he has the right to punch the woman in self defense. Unless she's going after the goodies, there is no need to defend.

If Chyna punches a man who is not a body builder or wrestler, he has the right to punch her back in self defense.

Basically what I'm saying is someone who is clearly stronger shouldn't punch back. That goes for any combination of genders. What about if a tiny man punches a bigger man?

What if he wants to tongue punch her starfish?

Originally posted by One Big Mob
What about if a tiny man punches a bigger man?

Punish him however you intend to punish the girl that hit the big man.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Many here are against guns/weapons. However don't have a viable solution to self defense.

What do you do if your home is invaded and your family is endanger, which happens every 30 seconds in America.

What if your in your car and being assaulted, car jacked with your family in the car?

With the police on the run lately, and they only show up after the crime.

How do you defend yourself?

I make eye contact and smile.

Originally posted by meep-meep
I make eye contact and smile.

I tried that at gunpoint, and the guy said he was going to kill me if I didn't give him my wallet and phone.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Many here are against guns/weapons. However don't have a viable solution to self defense.

What do you do if your home is invaded and your family is endanger, which happens every 30 seconds in America.

What if your in your car and being assaulted, car jacked with your family in the car?

With the police on the run lately, and they only show up after the crime.

How do you defend yourself?

I think the general advice that police, etc. give is to comply. Material things are not worth losing your life over.

Police are only there after the crime.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Police are only there after the crime.

Yeah, that is the nature of crime, that most criminals don't do it when police are around.

I'm all for better funding and training for police though, has a pretty decent return on investment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, that is the nature of crime, that most criminals don't do it when police are around.

I'm all for better funding and training for police though, has a pretty decent return on investment.

You are ignoring the issue and now changing the subject.

I actually have been robbed at gunpoint. The police only show up after.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are ignoring the issue and now changing the subject.

I actually have been robbed at gunpoint. The police only show up after.

What are you trying to say? How are the police supposed to be there while you are being robbed at gunpoint?

When you were robbed, how did you react? Did you attack the robbers?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are you trying to say? How are the police supposed to be there while you are being robbed at gunpoint?

When you were robbed, how did you react? Did you attack the robbers?

Yes how are they supposed to be there?

I was scared shitless, have you ever had a gun pulled on you and told you gonna be killed?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes how are they supposed to be there?

I was scared shitless, have you ever had a gun pulled on you and told you gonna be killed?

They can't be there, I think we agree on that, yes?

I have not. Do you think you would have gotten out of that situation better if you had had a gun on you or perhaps even tried to pull it on the robber?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They can't be there, I think we agree on that, yes?

I have not. Do you think you would have gotten out of that situation better if you had had a gun on you or perhaps even tried to pull it on the robber?

Hell yes I would have gotten out of it if I had my gun, are you being silly now?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hell yes I would have gotten out of it if I had my gun, are you being silly now?

Why do you think the robber wouldn't have shot you if they had noticed you had a gun? There's a good chance you'd be dead right now if you had tried to fight back. That's why the advice that authorities give is to comply, give up your money, it's not worth risking being killed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you think the robber wouldn't have shot you if they had noticed you had a gun? There's a good chance you'd be dead right now if you had tried to fight back. That's why the advice that authorities give is to comply, give up your money, it's not worth risking being killed.

Omg your acting retarded now.

Thats like saying

"Cops should not have guns against criminals cause they might fight back and get shot"

I saw the guy coming for me, if I had had my gun it would have been pulled and he would of ran the fck off.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Omg your acting retarded now.

Thats like saying

"Cops should not have guns against criminals cause they might fight back and get shot"


Cops get paid to put themselves into these situations, it's their job, if they wanted to increase their odds of survival yes, they should not draw guns or get near criminals at all. But it's a different situation. You are not a cop tasked with bringing the robber to justice, you are a civilian who is being robbed and needs to maximise his chance of survival.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I saw the guy coming for me, if I had had my gun it would have been pulled and he would of ran the fck off.

Or he would have seen you draw it and murdered you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cops get paid to put themselves into these situations, it's their job, if they wanted to increase their odds of survival yes, they should not draw guns or get near criminals at all. But it's a different situation. You are not a cop tasked with bringing the robber to justice, you are a civilian who is being robbed and needs to maximise his chance of survival.



Or he would have seen you draw it and murdered you.

I doubt it, I'm pretty sure I can take a untrained homeless street thug out. I know you would have done everything including bend over though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I doubt it, I'm pretty sure I can take a untrained homeless street thug out. I know you would have done everything including bend over though.

Yeah, you are well trained, maybe you would have had a good chance, maybe 80% you win. That's still a 20% chance you bleed to death for the couple twenties in your wallet....it's just not worth it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you are well trained, maybe you would have had a good chance, maybe 80% you win. That's still a 20% chance you bleed to death for the couple twenties in your wallet....it's just not worth it.

You do realize I been shot at before. I doubt this guy had, he had the upper hand because he was armed, if I was armed he would have ran like a pussy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I doubt it, I'm pretty sure I can take a untrained homeless street thug out. I know you would have done everything including bend over though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You do realize I been shot at before. I doubt this guy had, he had the upper hand because he was armed, if I was armed he would have ran like a pussy.

Or he would have gotten scared and started shooting you frantically and possibly hit you and killed you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or he would have gotten scared and started shooting you frantically and possibly hit you and killed you.

Do you know how hard it is to hit someone with a bullet much less from a handgun? Have you even picked a gun up and ever tried to shoot on target.

Until you have, your statement is empty words based on clueless thinking.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you know how hard it is to hit someone with a bullet much less from a handgun? Have you even picked a gun up and ever tried to shoot on target.

Until you have, your statement is empty words based on clueless thinking.

Well, I've used to shoot rifle for sport, but no, I wouldn't know how hard it is to shoot a handgun first hand. It doesn't matter though over 10000 people are killed by guns in the US, obviously people are able to murder other people with guns. Again it's not just my silly idea, go to any police station in your country and ask whether you should draw a gun when you are robbed at gunpoint or comply with the robbers demands, the answer will be the same as mine.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I've used to shoot rifle for sport, but no, I wouldn't know how hard it is to shoot a handgun first hand. It doesn't matter though over 10000 people are killed by guns in the US, obviously people are able to murder other people with guns. Again it's not just my silly idea, go to any police station in your country and ask whether you should draw a gun when you are robbed at gunpoint or comply with the robbers demands, the answer will be the same as mine.

Speculation

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Speculation

And your theory that the robber would just have been scared off and run away isn't?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And your theory that the robber would just have been scared off and run away isn't?

A robber isn't looking to kill people, he's looking to steal with the use of force and intimidation.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
A robber isn't looking to kill people, he's looking to steal with the use of force and intimidation.

And if he's scared that the victim might shoot him he might act first and shoot the victim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And if he's scared that the victim might shoot him he might act first and shoot the victim.

You seem to know a lot for never being in any situation you talk about.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You seem to know a lot for never being in any situation you talk about.
And you seem to always have a personal anecdote that explains your stance even though it's contrary to statistical analysis and expert opinion...

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you seem to always have a personal anecdote that explains your stance even though it's contrary to statistical analysis and expert opinion...

Oh and where are your statistics? Personal experience holds more weight then your keystrokes across the pond.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh and where are your statistics? Personal experience holds more weight then your keystrokes across the pond.

I just returned your blanket statement in the same vein. What we know for sure from your personal anecdote is that you survived. And that's the important thing. If you had tried to draw a gun there's a good chance it wouldn't have gone the same way.

But, here is a study that shows that gun ownership independently increases the chance of homicide:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you seem to always have a personal anecdote that explains your stance even though it's contrary to statistical analysis and expert opinion...


I don't know what you're talking about, here. On this particular topic, theft is almost always a non-violent crime.


However, robberies, by definition, involve force (whether it be threats or a real force used) and/or a deadly weapon. Even then, I'm fairly certain robberies are, a majority of the time, an injury free crime.




I could have missed the boat entirely, AGAIN, and I don't understand what you two are talking about. But I'd rather stick to real facts and stats instead of getting stuck in loops of shit slinging.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know what you're talking about, here. On this particular topic, theft is almost always a non-violent crime.


However, robberies, by definition, involve force (whether it be threats or a real force used) and/or a deadly weapon. Even then, I'm fairly certain robberies are, a majority of the time, an injury free crime.




I could have missed the boat entirely, AGAIN, and I don't understand what you two are talking about. But I'd rather stick to real facts and stats instead of getting stuck in loops of shit slinging.

What I am saying is that a victim drawing a gun in a robbery vastly increases the chance of the victims death or injury. Judging from our agreement that robberies are usually an injury free crime, I think we probably agree on that as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I'd rather stick to real facts and stats instead of getting stuck in loops of shit slinging.

Didn't you know Bardock and me have a set time every morning to act our part in a German shizer video? Usually I throw the first shit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I just returned your blanket statement in the same vein. What we know for sure from your personal anecdote is that you survived. And that's the important thing. If you had tried to draw a gun there's a good chance it wouldn't have gone the same way.

But, here is a study that shows that gun ownership independently increases the chance of homicide:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

I'm not going to count the New England Journal of Medicine as a credible source for a discussion about self defense and guns, since when did Doctors become a source for this discussion. I might as well ask the ant hill outside what their stance on raid is.

What peer reviewed journal would you prefer your studies to be published in?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What peer reviewed journal would you prefer your studies to be published in?

How about the NRA or FBI or ATF.

Going to gym, post whatever, Ill reply when I get back

I can provide a US university study that supports what Bardock42 stated.


http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/


Basically, for every 1% increase in gun-ownership rates, there is a .9% increase in homicides.



HOOOOOWEVER....and this is extremely important.

The researches are clear to point out that the classic "correlation does not equal causation" because they state:

"Siegel noted that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he said the issue warrants further study."


Also, there are other studies that show an increase in gun ownership decreases crime. This is why the gun debate is not very clear.


As Ushgarak is want to point out, it's a cultural problem. The US has a violence problem.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you know how hard it is to hit someone with a bullet much less from a handgun?

This statement is contradictory to your point. You're saying that if you had a gun, you wouldn't have been robbed. But why carry a gun in the first place if it's so hard to hit someone with a bullet?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm not going to count the New England Journal of Medicine as a credible source for a discussion about self defense and guns, since when did Doctors become a source for this discussion. I might as well ask the ant hill outside what their stance on raid is.
They're the guys who clean up the mess.

lol

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I tried that at gunpoint, and the guy said he was going to kill me if I didn't give him my wallet and phone.

Pay attention to body others' body movements. You might have been able to avoid that or stop it. Sorry you had to experience that. Besides, that is rare to get held up. I was almost held up twice. I somehow made the suckers chuckle and think twice. Meh.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Excuses. Excuses. Just because you cannot do you own finances does not make you ineligible to handle a gun in your own home.

But if you need financial help from the government then I'd wonder why such a person is wasting money on a firearm. Unless they intend to hunt down their dinner every night or something.

Also this isn't just about old folks going on a rampage. You hear the recent story of the "cop" who killed an unarmed man? He was a volunteer cop, and he was old. How did he kill the guy? Well..he pulled out his gun and shot him..but it happened because he actually thought he was pulling out his taser, but instead pulled out a gun and someone died. Yet not only was such a person allowed to own a gun..they gave him at least a tiny bit of power for reasons unknown.

Yea the pay to play cop. Heard all about it.

Yeah, and that is just one case. I also remember hearing in Chicago a few years ago a guy in his 70's was going around robbing banks.