and there is not always a choice, nor time to make a committee, long term goals, hire out a researcher and people to take polls about what you should decide to do... no, you decide if he is a threat to life and safety of you and your family... it aint about grade school, nor is it about "fucked up" in the manner you suggest: it is about the ability to live a long and fruitful life without some jack*ss invading your privacy, attempting to hurt your family and then taking what you've worked years to accumulate (unless you've been born with a silver spoon up your *ss, then, of course, i see your point - hire out security and let the private po-po protect you - of course, that would mean [shudder] arming the lower classes to protect your assets, so there is still a huge threat, eh?) it aint about no risk, so stop presenting that strawman you seem to have no problem attacking those who want the right to protect themselves or survive whereas you're not willing to address the actual problem (like felons, criminal activity, insanity, violence in the offender parties) why is that, eh? so you think the insane or criminal have more "rights" than the regular person? how much do you intend to let the gov't have to support your local police? are you one of those who argue against raising taxes for things like police, fire, emergency services while advocating for the removal of the 2nd? do you know what the 2nd was intended for? (and before you say stupid sh*t like "militia only" then perhaps you should actually read the authors intent and consider that militia were simply armed civilians brought together for a specific purpose - who OWNED THEIR WEAPONS ALREADY or were bought weapons on the gov't dime to keep and maintain on their own as they paid back the "loan" for the weapon) actually, no but you know that already since they're actually published in places like the NIH, right?
and again, why should the rights of the criminal or other party who is actively violating your rights be more important? even LE would take down the idiot, so why should anyone else not be allowed to defend themselves? why should anyone have to wait to get help? this is about survival in the case of a violent attack or a threat to your safety and welfare... and no, there isn't always time to hire a committee to respond with the best course of action for all parties. no one thinks "if i go into the woods days from any civilization and get attacked by a bear, i should call the cops and wait for them before defending myself"... so, to answer the comments respectively: 1- never, ever pull out a weapon of any kind if you can't or won't use it because it then becomes a weapon of opportunity for the other person and this is how you get yourself hurt, injured, killed or worse 2- i would personally make the decision in the stress of the moment, but i've also had a bit of experience and a sh*tload of training (of course, training is also available for gun owners). this is one reason LE, FD, ER, MIL and others use the adage: Train like it's real if you train to defend yourself and utilise a logical method (like the escalation of force used by the Military) then it's just a matter of following the course of action and responding 3- no one is ever "sure everything will be just fine afterwards". it isn't a game show. it isn't a predetermined event. it is life. kinda like having kids.
to throw in my 2 cents to the OP: Bowser i've had a history of being very capable in self defense and i'm also a retired soldier... but everyone also ages, and i know that if i had to fight "bubba the meth addict" while in the throes of a binge, i would be in deep trouble. this is the reason you should seriously consider a firearm as well as some training. i do, however, recommend insuring you budget for a monthly allotment designated for training (rounds, range fee's, travel expenses etc... out here, i can use the yard or drive the minuscule 20 miles to the free gun/rifle range, but there may not be that available in your area) another way of putting it: you wouldn't put your grandmother in the local MMA ring with the local 16-26 year old thug (especially if you don't know what weapons said thug will bring into the ring - it's not like they are known for obeying rules, eh?) IMHO - i would rather have the ability to fight back and not need it than to find myself in a fight with a drugged up anyone and no means to protect my family. (around here, there is no cell phone signal, so to get the cops i would have to travel at least a mile to make the emergency call... so... ) here is a thought to consider:
Agreed. But by the same thinking, you wouldn't give your grandmother a gun and then put her in the local MMA ring with a thug trying to kill her. (In fact, unless she was still sharp mentally, and unless she was willing to put in the time to train, giving her a gun is going to be more likely to hurt her than help her.)
That's the point: Situational awareness, skills assessment and gun control. Again, gun control means hitting what you aim at.
uhm... you don't know my grandmother then - LOL and that is only partially joking, really (she's from South Miami) and the point really is this: the only way one is going to have a fighting chance for survival against a criminal is to insure you have some advantage. hoo-rah
I see your points ; but when does the advantage become a disadvantage ? Inotherwords , are you willing to be paranoid about the crimminal 24/7 , all year long , for your life time ? Just asking river
so i'll just answer i'm not paranoid - i do, however, like to insure i am safe. that means being prepared. it aint about being "paranoid" IMHO - paranoid would mean barricading yourself in your home with booby traps while arming yourself for the revolution, stocking ammo, purchasing that lovely new shiny Abrams and setting yourself up with hacked satellite feeds around your place, IR sensors with UHF backup, biometrics and other stuff. of course, if that is how you want to live, that is your RIGHT, and far be it from me to take that right away from anyone. it's simply wrong to impose your own culture or lifestyle on another when the Constitution guarantee's your right to be yourself (as well as protect yourself) of course, living like i do is far different than most people as well... not only rural, but very, very remote. so a weapon is a necessity for all kinds of things, be it groceries to hostile animals. so it is not abnormal or irrational to keep one on my person at all times. (we have: bear, boar, feral dog packs, mountain lions, bobcats, skunk, etc - and rabies has been noted in the area) had to address this separately this is usually defined by your culture, beliefs and personal code. if you're someone who doesn't agree with guns then by all means, live your life your own way ... however, considering the constitution and the right to bear arms, that means the problem anti-gun people have with gun ownership isn't the gun owner, but their own belief system, right? so the short answer is: when you consider it a disadvantage, then it is. the long answer means addressing specific points you didn't mention...which then drags up the problem of evidence as defined by the governing bodies that would control the situation (like the courts, LE, etc), which are pretty clear already (though again, not enforced as they should be in the US - otherwise we wouldn't see armed felons. ever. right? ... and make no mistake: i am not saying anything negative about the understaffed and underfunded law enforcement agencies out there who actually do a great job overall considering) EDIT - POST SCRIPT had to add a postscript about this: Certain lifestyles live this way already because it's their job. law enforcement is always concerned about the criminal element. some people would view their lives as being "paranoid" in many ways simply because of a lack of understanding. coming from that kind of background, it isn't paranoid so much as it's (again) planning ahead. when your job intentionally puts people behind bars for the violation of the laws, and those criminals incarcerated are jailed because they are, by definition, not able to abide by the rule of law, for whatever reason, then you become a target for the criminal element. owning a weapon and carrying isn't paranoia on the part of the officer at that point, even if they've retired.
Truck Captain Understood But also understand me ; I do not want to take guns away from the sane people ; such as yourself . It is the guns that keep the govn't in check , and I'd like to think that the Military would never kill their own . BUT...... But what happened on the street that 10yr olds couldn't be tough , fist fighters , instead of pulling the trigger . WHAT caused the street people ; at a very , very age , to kill with a gun ? As opposed to being a dam good street fighter ? Because those on the street know a good tough skilled fighter , and respected them , at least they did when I was younger .
i do understand you. really... but where does the line in the sand get drawn? as i noted above, we really do have laws that cover the whole "insane" problem. but like the whole "felons aren't allowed to own, buy or live with a person who owns guns" laws, they're not always enforced times were very different back then. people (especially men) were supposed to be tough and ready to engage in fisticuffs (to put it nicely)... and they were expected to adhere to a code as well. that is the important part... the problem with the street criminal is actually simpler than most people think: a criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law in order to have a street element that is respectable there must be a code of conduct that everyone abides by (like modern societies rule of law) that would also mean that there is a governing force that insures compliance. even if it is predominantly culturally driven like, say, the Lakota, there is still at least some military or other order in said tribe or culture that enforces the cultural norms. when they're violated, the violator is either expelled or punishment is issued typically today the street element is the outlier in society living on the fringe or completely outside the rule of law, and that means, by definition, that they don't adhere to any laws that are promoted for the sake of the society. (this also means, by definition, that those who DO obey the rule of law, or obey a code of conduct, are targets of opportunity for said element.) so we already know that violence is inherent in the species, right? (actually that can be said of anything that fights to survive) so then add in the refusal of an individual to agree to cultural norms (specifically, the rule of law), abide by any code and then mix in a culture that is narcissistic and teaches egocentrism ("an inability to understand or assume any perspective other than their own") and it will always degrade into what we see today in our criminal elements, youthful criminals and outliers in society, IMHO so i guess the answer to you would be: (offered IMHO) 1- they're taught by culture and mass media to idolize the criminal element as well as those who break the law 2- it's easier to learn how to shoot than fight 3- it's far faster and easier to make headlines when you have a gun and are willing to kill people than it is to kick *ss and be respectable by adhering to a code EDIT - addendum i would like to reiterate something i said above: making more laws, restrictive laws or even banning guns will not help or fix this problem we have more so because criminals don't obey the laws, but also because it makes no sense to create a sh*tload of new laws that also will never be enforced... or that will be selectively enforced. this undermines the rule of law as well as the culture, law enforcement, all judicial systems and the government
well, it's not obvious unless you follow my posts or stalk me (LOL) ... but yes, i am half Oglala (Lakota)
i did but just FYI - i have to head out in about 20min which tribe? there are several reservations. i don't personally live on one, but i do have family on a couple different ones
You are going to miss a stationery target by five feet in a distance of twenty? You blindfolded? Again: if you're worried about damaging the power lines, the last thing you want to be doing is roping and climbing ladders and maneuvering a bucket or whatever around them with a chain saw. Tree trimming around power lines is much safer with a shotgun than a chainsaw in all respects, including the risk of damaging the line - but that doesn't make it safe. Just safer. It's a calculated risk. Not from shotgun accidents at stationery targets - not by orders of magnitude. Chainsaws are very dangerous. Per capita, user of a shotgun vs user of a chainsaw hurting themselves? Chainsaws, hands down. Timber falling and trimming is the most dangerous job in the US - that's the professionals getting killed and injured. And that doesn't even account for the ladders, ropes, powerlines, etc. What difference does that make? The guy who needs to hope that is the one who just broke into somebody's house. The rest of us are at no risk. See, I don't own a gun, James. So you are all safe from me even in your fantasy life, the one where shotguns kill people miles away and trimming trees with a chainsaw is a low-risk activity. You break into people's houses to borrow a cup of sugar? No wonder you think chainsaw tree trimming around power lines is a nice safe way to spend an afternoon.
I'm a relative amateur with a chainsaw, but I don't fear them. Professionals take the same precautions, whether with chainsaws or firearms. It makes me more nervous to climb and cut a tree than I get when doing range practice, but I still have all my appendages, even having used both tools. You know how to rope off your work and your equipment, and yourself. You estimate the the fall of the branch or trunk and work to that limit. Guns are way more precise. I guess stupid goes further in statistics, eh? Darwin awards...
Well, no. There are a great many robberies every year where no one is killed, and no one has a gun. (And "advantage" can mean a great many things - carrying no money, having a good lock on your door, knowing self-defense etc.)
There are something like 40 thousand chainsaw injuries annually in the U.S. alone. And the average chainsaw injury requires at least 100 stitches (on top of transfusions, etc.) at a cost exceeding ten thousand dollars (U.S. costs, of course). I haven't even located stats on shotgun-related injuries--the chainsaw stats were provided via the most basic google search: just type "chainsaw" and "accidents." But I would surmise that there are very,very few, and considering that sixty percent of U.S. gun deaths are suicides anyway, well... How anyone could even entertain the notion that a chainsaw is safer than a shotgun is beyond me, and the seeming confusion between a shotgun and a sniper rifle apparently--the "neighbors...miles away" thing--that's just weird. I kinda see what you mean about this strange sort of "magical thinking" that seems to afflict otherwise quote reasonable and intelligent persons whenever guns are mentioned.
