Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are few and far between and if they want to kill you for "fun" chances are you won't have time to produce a weapon anyway, I'm certainly not going to go through life worrying about such an insignificant threat.
Often does not mean always. One could procure Flash Bang grenades that does not include tear gas.
In the real world, one can, in most cases, either flee or barricade oneself in a room, again, not even considering the fact that most house invasions happen when you're not home and that the likelihood of being killed or seriously hurt during a home invasion is a negligible threat, compare to everyday tasks such as driving a car.
Seeing as you live in the "real world" do you also not drive?
As it were, you're actually a bigger threat to yourself (based on suicide rates and obesity rates) than burglars are.
Pleaase produce one story of any private citizen ever using a Flash Bang grenade to successfully defend themselves.
As far as "your" gun ownerships impact on "me": One reason that springs to mind is that the number one source of illegal firearms (those owned by criminals) is legally bought firearms. Reducing the accessibility of legal firearms will reduce the access to illegal firearms.
But what are the chances of you being the victim of a gun crime?
Quote:
Another would be that most gun kills happen within families or close friends, example: We are friends, we discuss weapon laws , I aggravate you to the point of violence and you shoot me in anger. (which of course you sorely regret later, since we're best buddies and all. )
I could just beat you to death with a hammer too...or a can of lutefisk.
Quote:
Q1: No, not necessarily, if I can easily avoid the confrontation, I prefer to do that, even if I have the means to defend myself. I've done this in the past (removed myself from the threat, before you ask, no it was not in my home, but if it was, and I could, I still would).
I guess I can't see the point in retreating out of my house just to keep a criminal alive.
Quote:
Q2: Someone with the intent or threat of raping. Aka, if he says "I'm going to rape your wife", I'll take his word for it and act accordingly.
Hmmm,best bet for the rapist is to not tell you his intentions and just say he is going to rob you both...
A recent real life "Grand Torino" moment:
Metro Man Says Teen Mob Terrorized His Neighborhood - WDAF (http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-metro-man-says-teen-mob-terrorized-his-neighborhood-20110616,0,4762112.story - broken link)
Less lethal ammo is legal to possess (though there may be local ordinances prohibiting it's possession).
Rubber buck and slugs are readily available, bean bags are a bit harder to find.
I'm at a loss as to why a civilian would feel a need to use less lethal ammo as civilians are rarely if ever in a position of needing to disperse rioters. At justifiable self defense distances it has a fairly high potential for lethality.
In castle doctrine states, the self defense distance can be a fairly long hallway for instance, can't it?
Regardless of the potential lethality, it's less lethal than buckshots and should certainly produce significant stopping power.
But what are the chances of you being the victim of a gun crime?
I could just beat you to death with a hammer too...or a can of lutefisk.
I guess I can't see the point in retreating out of my house just to keep a criminal alive.
Hmmm,best bet for the rapist is to not tell you his intentions and just say he is going to rob you both...
The chances are low, they're still significantly higher than they are in my home country for instance.
You could beat me to death with a hammer (though an odd choice of weapon considering the debate we were having at the time ) but it's harder to do and require more time, as far as the lutefisk go, it usually comes in Styrofoam containers and frankly, if you eat that crap, I'll probably not be friends with you anymore. Yuck... hehehe.
Well, like I said, I don't think I own anything worth killing over, if I can retreat, I will, he can take what he wants.
Again though, and to clarify; I don't oppose the use of force, deadly if necessary, if there's no other option. I simply oppose the idea that there's no other option as soon as someone enters your dwelling without your consent.
As food for thought: Norway has the same number of privately owned firearms per capita as the US (but it's predominantly hunting rifles and shot guns, not pistols etc.) and there are cases where said weapons have been used in self defense.
The main difference in legislation is that you need reasonable ground for ownership (aka, you're a hunter or sports shooter etc) and you need to store your firearms in a specific manner).
I also think there's a significant difference in attitude regarding gun ownership between the two nations, and taking that into account, I think reasonable gun laws would not necessarily restrict the right to ownership, but the accessibility/storage of said guns.
Again though, and to clarify; I don't oppose the use of force, deadly if necessary, if there's no other option. I simply oppose the idea that there's no other option as soon as someone enters your dwelling without your consent.
I suppose it might depend on the size of your house and the lengths that the assailant went to in order to enter. If they smash down the door with a sledge hammer, or break out a glass window to climb through, that's entirely different than the intruder finding an unlocked door and wandering in. In the former case, the effort required to enter the dwelling (especially an occupied dwelling) seems like it would warrant defensive measures.
Again, the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation with the intruder. Clearing a house is a difficult task that even trained SWAT teams and military units accomplish only if there is no alternative. But, heck, you could imagine a plethora of aggressive break-ins scenarios where you'd want to have a weapon immediately available.
Now, these situations aren't likely. Most criminals are criminals because they're not very ambitious to begin with, so they'll skip the house with the NRA sticker on the window, the security camera, the lights on, the dog, the locked dead bolt, or the one where the person's home. Gun owners don't want to ever have to use their guns in self-defense; they're merely a last resort if all other means of deterrence fail.
I could not use a sign like that. All my neighbors are armed to the teeth. The most likely thing to break into anyone's home in my neighborhood would not be human. I only have two rifles, two shotguns, and two handguns, so compared to my neighbors I am very lightly armed.
I suppose it might depend on the size of your house and the lengths that the assailant went to in order to enter. If they smash down the door with a sledge hammer, or break out a glass window to climb through, that's entirely different than the intruder finding an unlocked door and wandering in. In the former case, the effort required to enter the dwelling (especially an occupied dwelling) seems like it would warrant defensive measures.
Again, the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation with the intruder. Clearing a house is a difficult task that even trained SWAT teams and military units accomplish only if there is no alternative. But, heck, you could imagine a plethora of aggressive break-ins scenarios where you'd want to have a weapon immediately available.
Now, these situations aren't likely. Most criminals are criminals because they're not very ambitious to begin with, so they'll skip the house with the NRA sticker on the window, the security camera, the lights on, the dog, the locked dead bolt, or the one where the person's home. Gun owners don't want to ever have to use their guns in self-defense; they're merely a last resort if all other means of deterrence fail.
Interesting anecdote I remembered when you mention the NRA sticker..
There was an interview of a couple of burglars, in a Newspaper I read a while back. They said they didn't care about alarms and deadbolts, and though they disliked dogs, it wasn't necessarily a deterrent.
A house they would never enter though was one with any sort of insignia of/from a biker club/gang, apparently, it simply wasn't worth the hassle.
One of the best theft preventions then, might be to get Hells Angels blessing to put a sticker of theirs on your door.
In castle doctrine states, the self defense distance can be a fairly long hallway for instance, can't it?
Regardless of the potential lethality, it's less lethal than buckshots and should certainly produce significant stopping power.
It's lethal enough within the confines of an average home that it should not be used as a deterrent. There is a very high potential for lethality from it's use.
A person that opts to use less lethal munitions within their home should do so with the understanding that regardless of the less lethal designation there is a likelihood of killing the intruder.
As far as views go, if a majority wants gun control, there will be gun control.
Wanna bet?
Better yet .. Want to bet your life on it?
Even better .. Want to bet Your Loved One's life on it?
Gun control is simply putting the criminal in a superior advantage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I aggravate you to the point of violence and you shoot me in anger. (which of course you sorely regret later, since we're best buddies and all. 
)
