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?
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."
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonu
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 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.
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.