Im with you on this one but In all fairness I don't think there are many, not becouse thay don't happen but because the media genrally likes to report innocent people dieing over rapests dieing. 

this is how i look at this issue.

1. I think everyone can agree that there are rapist, murderers, etc.

2. Police can not be everywhere at once.

3. I have every right to defend myself and my family against these people.

4. A politician has no right to tell me that I can't defend them and myself.

5. There are too many guns in America already to ever get rid of. I have a few that are unregistered. Think how many are out their that the government does not know about.

 

When I was in the Navy I had a huge problem with the way our CO would handle disciplinary problems. Especially ones that involved drinking. Anyone else who was in the military can relate to this. Our leaders solution to almost every problem was to punish everyone. When some of our guys would get in trouble overseas then we were not allowed to drink overseas, we were given ridiculous curfews, not allowed to go to certain places. When I lived in Spain there were two DUI's in one weekend. The CO's solution was to punish everyone. We were not allowed to be out of our rooms (even if you lived out in town) after 10pm. Did this solve anything? NO, more people got into trouble because more rules were being broken. People were getting into trouble for stupid things, like taking their wife out to dinner, getting food. It is a stupid way to govern and it does not work.

Lets say hypothetically that all guns in america are gone. Then what? Will everyone be nice to each other. Probably not. what will happen is you will have more stabbings. Then what are you going to do. Take everyones knives. Then there will just be an increase in spearing, so on and so on.

I really think there is no solution that will work fully. Laws are only going to shift the laws of power in favor of on side or the other. And like someone else said in this thread, culture is the most important part in crime.

If there are gun amnisties in america (a time when you can give in unregustered guns with no consiquenses) I hope you are planing to hand them in. If you must own guns at least own them legally. 

 

 No people won't just be nice to each other but it would give crimes victums a better chance imo. I don't no about other people but I would rather be muged by someone with a knife rather than a gun. (or prefrably a pen like my friend) It would no doubt be no less traumatic but it is the way I feel about it.

and well said on this one, no solution will fully work as people are the problem. Guns don't kill people by themselves. Improve the economic conditions in the places where the crimanals come from and you will likely see improvment (maybe not in rapes), I can't belive if people had better employment oppertunities they would still rob people.

 

Here is the plot,  Mutt and Jeff have just escaped from prison/jail whatever.  They stole a car and found drugs to sell and buy guns,  or guns.  They say "we got to find a place to hole up.  That looks like a good place."  Check out Clockwork orange.  You, groggy, unarmed, open the door.  They are not kind.  Tell me about a Kung Fu move that works when the bad guy has a gun in your mouth.  You are stripped and duct taped,with the rest of your family.  It goes downhill.

I am sorry if I horrified you.  At my house, first the dogs make noise, I go to the door with a 357.  If he tries to break in he catches a bullet.  Or two.  I know that a 125 grain bullet going 1300 feet per second from my Ruger SP 101 is going to make him sing the blues.  With its 31/16 barrel it will be very easy to swivel it around and ask the other guy "Do you feel lucky?". 

Yes there may be court dates, and long conversations with police.  But which would you prefer?

Wow this thread is so interesting - wish I didn't have a theist badge sometimes ... Anyhow, I hope you won't mind me bending the rules a little to help you two guys out.

I googled and found about nine cases of shootings during home/workplace invasion that are fairly recent - one was from Australia, the other eight are from America. Of those eight, one, was a bungled police shooting (they missed the thieves and killed the homeowner), in two of the seven remaining there was a struggle over the gun between the homeowner and the burglar and one of those two ended in the homeowner being shot with her own gun.

Out of the seven cases of homeowners shooting home invaders: two burglars were killed (all the dead thieves were acting alone) and in four other cases burglars escaped, in one case a woman shot the through a door hitting a 14 year old boy in the face (he is a suspect) there were allegedly others involved in the break in, they got away without being identified.

In brief:

8 homeowners defending their homes with firearms, in U.S. located on the first pages of respectively, one google web search, one google news search - search terms = burglar shot

2/7 cases resulted in a struggle over the gun, 1/7 ended with the homeowner shot (injured) , 2/7 cases ended in fatality.

 

OK. Here are some examples of people using guns to drive off or kill home invaders as given to me by google. To make sure that these are accurate, I will only include stories found on news websites.

 

Convicted sex offender rapes woman in her home, then leaves, comes back a few days later to rape her a second time and she shoots him to death:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument

 

Here a man shoots a home invader, police determine that it is self defense:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29221572/

 

Here is a news video about a man forcing four home invaders to flee by shooting at them:

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/12/caught-on-tape-man-defends-self-against-4-armed-home-invaders/#more-1649

 

Miami homeowner announces that he has a gun, home invader flees:

http://www.republic-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=682:armed-resident-defends-home-against-burglars&catid...

 

Three robbers break into home of sick woman, she uses gun to make them leave, on robber comes back(!) and she shoots him in the chest:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0109/585528.html

 

Man forces his way into the house of his ex-inlaws, he is shot three times in self defense:

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/dec/27/man-shot-twice-former--las-home/?breakingnews

 

Robber tries to wrestle gun from home owner, robber is shot to death:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20081122_Burglar_shot_dead_by_S__Phila__resident.html

 

Man breaks through woman's window, she runs to her room and he follows her, she shoots him to death:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/homepagetopstory/stories/Phoenix-local-news-092808-fatal-shoot-retrain-orde.bf7a220a.html

 

Man breaks through woman's window (why does this keep happening to different women? this is a different incident than the previous one), he holds a knife to her while she is in bed, she screams, her son who was home at the time gets his gun and kills the man:

http://www.cbs12.com/news/intruder_4709600___article.html/home_alleged.html

 

Armed burglars break into house, one is killed by armed homeowner:

http://www.kcra.com/newsarchive/17427555/detail.html

 

Burglar breaks into house of 85 year old woman, she uses a gun to force him to call 911 and wait for police:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406185,00.html

 

Four armed people break into house, home owner shoots and kills one of the intruders, other intruders flee, homeowner is also shot but survives:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/17086452/detail.html

 

Racist attacks man with baseball bat, man shoots racist, racist hospitalized (don't bring a bat to a gun fight):

http://wednesdayjournalonline.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=11947

 

Two men kick in back door of pregnant woman's home, she shows them her shotgun and they flee:

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=8445177

 

Robber breaks into 75 year old man's house, homeowner threatens robber with gun, robber flees:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1212186316213740.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

Here is an excerpt from the news article, a quotation from the DA:"The homeowner acted appropriately," Freed said. "Criminals who break into occupied homes assume the risk of being shot by the homeowners."

 

Armed man tricks his way into home by pretending to be a woman (!), the man then draws gun on home owners, one of the home owners gets his gun and kills the intruder:

http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/nov/30/teen-dies-in-shooting-during-home-invasion/

 

Ok, that's enough. I think I have collected a decent list here.

I have to ask Kevin: did you really think that there were no cases of homeowners using guns to deal with home invaders? I'm having trouble believing this. Was I taking your comment about there being no cases such as these too seriously? Did you spend a few minutes on google before making your bold and obviously untrue claim?

Wow. That happened mere blocks from where I currently live. The Bahai Temple mentioned in the article is less than a mile up the street from me. Anyways, I thought the tribune article was good, and the comments were also surprisingly informative.

This goes back to what I said in my previous post - don't do stupid things. I wonder if there are statistics correlating gun ownership to increased reckless behavior - failure to lock doors, change locks, set security alarms, call police. I wouldn't be all that surprised. By the way, what that guy did by failiing to call the police and taking matters into his own hands, is analogous to beginning CPR on a cardiac arrest victim without having someone call 911. (In most cases a defibrillator is needed to restart the victim's heart, so unless you happen to be in a facility where one is accessible, you need for an ambulance to arrive. Even then, the patient only has about a 30% chance of survival.) The point I'm making is that there are people that we train using our tax dollars to deal with these situations. They do this shit every day, for a living. The odds of some suburban amateur turning out a hero are low. The odds of someone with proper training handling the situation in an appropriate manner are high. I'm not saying that someone can't succeed in fending off a criminal or that the police can't make a fumble, but that's where the odds lie.

Ok this is the last hypothetical situation I'm addressing, because these are getting way too detailed, and the details tend to just make the whole thing more ridiculous. First of all, escaped convicts are going to choose an unfamiliar inhabited residence to hide out in? Maybe this is just because I'm from Chicago, aka mob central, which has no shortage of sketchy abandoned buildings. Anyways, moving on, it is what it is...

I can't reiterate this enough~ don't do stupid things. This hypothetical story fails because I would never be stupid enough to just go answer the door if somebody rang my bell at 2 in the morning or whatever. Any friend of mine would be decent enough to call ahead first, unless it was an emergency. Even if someone did show up on my doorstep, I'd at least look out the window first or use the intercom system in my apartment to inquire who it was. And after finding out it's no one I know, that door would stay firmly shut.

If I'm stupid and groggy enough to go answer the door for a complete stranger, then how come I wouldn't be stupid and groggy enough to forget to bring my gun with me? Why am I not stupid and groggy enough to shoot them dead on sight immediately? And as I said before, I can disarm an opponent with my hands. It's unlikely they could get close enough to shove the barrel of the gun in my mouth. I guess if I was groggy, my reaction time would be down, but if that's the case I wouldn't have the reflexes to shoot them immediately anyways. And I guess if both men were armed, it would be harder to thwart them right away. This is all silly speculation, because I never would have opened the door in the first place.

And in this hypothetical situation, I have a family that I live with - so with my imaginary husband's help that would at least make it two on two. Or if we're talking about my family in real life, whom I don't live with most of the time, are you really going to tell me that my brother (6' tall and also a karate black belt) and my father (5'11" and works out a fair amount) wouldn't do anything to stop these guys before everyone was stripped and duct taped? I mean, sure, someone may get hit with a bullet. But for the ones I love, I'd have no regrets taking the hit. Even if I had a gun, if we got into a shooting match, my family or I could get shot anyways.

The point that I'm getting at is that there are no guarantees that just because you own a gun, you'll get away uninjured and unharmed. The way that the laws currently are, I don't have to pass any sort of qualifying training in order to own the gun, so the chances that I'd actually be able to use it effectively are slim to none anyways. If there are people that want to own guns that's fine, but it's not the only way to protect yourself against danger, and I disagree with the idea that "everyone should own a gun," as one of my friends has advocated in the past. In fact, that's the worst idea I've ever heard. I think that people would get it wrong more times than they would get it right. There should definitely at least be restrictions on who is permitted or licensed to own a firearm.

A fourth of those accidental shootings on the first page weren't even from the US, and one of the ones from the US was Dick Cheney shooting someone. Anywhere where there are guns there will be accidental shootings. That means that the US has a lot of them since we have a lot of guns. Oh well.

For that matter you don't need to cross the Atlantic to experience high crime rates. Go to the Netherlands if you want a walk on the wild side. They have a violent crime rate that is 24% higher than in the US, and the property crime rate is 55% higher. Man, it must be great to be a burglar over there. Over here DA's make public statements warning burglars that they are responsible if they are shot while breaking into someones home. And guess what, we have a lower property crime rate and a lower violent crime rate than the Netherlands. Funny how that works out. I'm sure glad I don't live a war zone like the Netherlands. I'd better not take that plane across the Atlantic for the time being.

 

Here is what Voorburg and Heerlen criminal research on the Netherlands found in 2004:

Type of crime
Crime of violence: 109,247
Property offence: 946,394

Total Netherlands Population in 2002 (I couldn't find it for 2004, so we will use this one and assume that they didn't have a population boom in two years): 16,171,520

So per capita in the Netherlands in 2004:

625 violent crimes per 100,000 people

5684 proprety crimes per 100,000 people

 

In the US (see US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004):

465.5 violent crimes per 100,000 people

3,517.1 property crimes per 100,000 people

 

Maybe you should do a little research before posting. I mean come on, you live a nation with far higher crime rates than mine AND you have the audacity to tell me that my country is like a war zone. To find these statistics I just used google. To find those news reports of people using firearms to foil home invaders I just used google. Please people, spend a minute or two researching the subject before you fire off new posts.

Yup. Three out of every four were. That was what struck me.

We do indeed understand each other

Good choice of locations! Our Central Bureau of Statistics is located in both Voorburg and Heerlen. My father worked there until he retired and boy did we know it at home... no dinner conversation without dad, at some point demanding that we must back up our statements with data, heheh.

I know the numbers well. In 2004 Heerlen was the "most criminal area" of the Netherlands. It always was pretty wild- I remember when I was serving in the army in 1993 that two of my roommates would grin about them having less reason to feel homesick then the rest of us: the consoling sound of gunfire in the background reminded them of Heerlen )

The main reason for the high crime rate in Heerlen is that of all urban areas in NL, it is closest to both the Belgian and the German border, as well as closest to France. Making it a "natural" spot for international drug traffic. So, lots of junkies in Heerlen. But since the economy of the whole area (South-Limburg) once depended on the coal mines -which were all closed in the seventies- and there never really was anything to replace them, unemployment is rather high, incomes are low... well, let's put it like this, Heerlen is not quite the Jewel in the Dutch crown.

But I feel it's kind of unfair to extrapolate one -and especially this- area to a whole country.

For better statistics, check out this link:

statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/

For the translations:

Geregistreerde misdrijven = Registered crimes.
Opgehelderde misdrijven = Solved crimes.
Geweldsmisdrijven = violent crimes .
Vermogensmisdrijven = (Not sure about the translation. It involves a broad range of crimes, from burglaries to fraud- any way to illegally obtain money or valuables from anyone without using violence other then to property)
Vernieling en Openbare Orde= Vandalism and Disturbance of the Peace.

What these numbers do not show is the number of fatalities. If I can find those I will post them.

What these numbers do not show either is the number of casualties caused while "preventing crimes"- as in, those accidental shootings.

So because some innocents died you have to punish everyon? Now I don't have a right to defend myself and my family because of some idiots.

 

Yup! thats the way Carebearism/Pussification works

Hey, now. I'm from rural Alaska (though from Southeast Alaska, rather than the west, which is in the news right now). Most towns and villages have a VPSO, a village public safety officer. My brother-in-law was stationed out in Unalakleet many years ago. The response time from a VPSO is usually measured in single-digit minutes, as the towns and villages are pretty small, and everybody is no more than 5 minutes from anybody else.

I don't think I agree here. Western nations can be compared with Western nations. I am not sure if guns are legal in Canada (I believe they are), but in most European countries (with the exception of Switzerland) they are not. If owning guns does prevent criminal acts from happening, this might be reflected in the statistics somehow.

Although this ís a tricky one, of course, since guns are probably not the only factor. But still, might be worth looking into.

No, I don't think i've read anyone in here say that guns should be banned. I for one just want to see some common sense in gun laws.

We currently have over 20,000 gun control laws in the US. How many more do we need? Would having over 30,000 be more reasonable or would having only 10,000 be more reasonable? I think we have far to many gun control laws. I some states have created a convoluted maze of gun regulations that no citizen can be expected to understand.  In California people have been convicted of violating our states assault weapons ban and appeal courts have overturned the convictions since the assault weapon bill is too difficult to understand. It turns out that our state firearm laws are so numerous and complex that our state appeals courts claim that they violate equal protection and due process. It is so bad in that in one case the prosecution was unable to find the exact part of the assault weapons law that a man violated. They still got a conviction (was that jury stupid?), but an appeals court overturned that one also. Basically I see most gun laws as a way to harass gun owners and not as laws that protect us from unreasonable gun use. I agree with some gun laws: no gun ownership for felons, no discharging firearms in city limits, no threatening people with firearms unless you are in a situation that allows lethal self defense. Stuff like that is fine with me; its the 20,000+ other laws that average citizens can not possibly understand and even prosecutors can't always understand that I am against.

I believe the contributing differences is the economic systems between countries. In America there is much emphasis on individual financial success and a laissez faire attitude with a limited safety net in case of hard times whereas Europe has a socialist attitude with a billowing safety net.

 

 

From http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf

-  Gun availability is what is causing school shootings
-  Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member
-  gun sales lead to more gun violence
-  murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances
-  Guns in poor communities cause deaths
-  Other countries register guns to fight crime
-  Gun registration works
-  Gun registration will help police find suspects
-  Registration does not lead to confiscation
-  Licensing will keep bad people from obtaining or using guns
-  “Assault weapons ”are a serious problem in the U.S
-  Assault weapons are used in 16% of homicides
-  Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
-  Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
-  Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
-  Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection
-  Police favor gun control.
-  The police are our protection, and people don't need guns
-  The supply of guns is a danger to law enforcement
-  “Cop Killer ”bullets need to be banned
-  Teflon bullets are designed to penetrate police bullet-  proof vests
-  High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings
-  The Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right
-  The "militia" clause is to arm the National Guard
-  The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
-  U.S. v. Miller said that the Second Amendment is not an individual right
-  Gun owners are a tiny minority
-  Most Americans favor gun control

Bulletted lists are fun. Ultimate in efficiency.

Oh please. It's a factor. It can't be a cause. A gun isn't a cause. Unless it assembles itself, arms itself, and sets itself off anyway. I've never heard of that happening...

43 times more likely than what, exactly? A foot? A shovel? A baseball bat? A tub? Meh. This has got to be one of the first advertising tricks I became aware of. Sad to see it used at all, let alone in a serious discussion.

Eh. That would seem logical. But it depends on too many circumstances to take this comment as accurate.

Usually. Not always.

Eh? Perhaps you mean that the poor in poor communities cause deaths....

I have never once heard of this being accurate.

Define "works".

Change "will" to "can, but not necessarily will".

Huh? What's this supposed to mean anyway?

Might make it a bit harder, but it won't stop them.

I have been educated to know that I'm not familiar enough with various weapon types to comment on specific guns.

Sure.

Definately. Two within a couple weeks in Toronto.

That says something about the education system, not guns.

HA! That depends entirely on where you are. Even in Canada every police force would give a different answer to this question. RCMP would mostly say it's ridiculous. Farmers don't tend to go on killing sprees. But Division 59 of the Toronto Police service would definately jump on this wagon.

I don't trust police any more than I trust normal people. Why? Because they are just normal people in a uniform.

How obvious are you trying to be? Lets continue: The supply of cars is a danger to law enforcement. The supply of carbon is a danger to law enforcement. The supply of methane is a danger to law enforcement. The supply of doughnuts is a danger to law enforcement.

What the hell? Do they know how easy it is to MAKE a cop killer bullet? I think if you're looking through the guys gun after the shootout, he's already dead. Another charge isn't going to help anything but the deforestation process.

Teflon bullets? What the hell is the point? Is it cheaper to make it out of Teflon? I wouldn't have thought so...

Define "high capacity gun".

American politics. I couldn't say one way or the other.

See above.

Uhm...no. Gun owners are the majority.

Poll?

I agree...

40 Reasons For Gun Control

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

20,000 and how many are based on any sense what so ever? As I understand it you don't even have to register your guns.  These gun laws must be avalable to the public I would like to see what useless things they have used reached to get to 20,000. Wait I just so happened to google it and that would include all federall laws and all the states individual laws. I looked for your federal laws on this and from what little I have seen there are more on the creation of guns and ammo than limiting what you may do with it.

e.g. (1) Marking of ammunition. Each

licensed manufacturer or licensed importer

of armor piercing ammunition

shall identify such ammunition by

means of painting, staining or dying the

exterior of the projectile with an opaque

black coloring. This coloring must completely

cover the point of the projectile

and at least 50 percent of that portion of

the projectile which is visible when the

projectile is loaded into a cartridge case.

 

So I would say that the 20,000 figure you posted is infact not really valid as most do not have anything to do with you.  

A what point are you guns going to realise that your consitution is what 125 maybe 200 years old and is perhaps outdated. There is no way They could of predicted all the advances in weapons. Our constitution in south Africa is 15 years old and as such reflects this better. Our problem in South Africa Is all the Apartied resistance weaponary still in public hands not the laws, It is the fact that there are to many guns out there. But in our yearly gun amnisties over 500,000 illegal guns have been handed in this includes rocket launches, handguns, semi automatic and fully automatic weaponary. In return everyone who hands in weapons gets toys for there kids. It is a great program. People even hand in there legal guns because most people on the rifght side of the law want a gun free society and you are never going to achive this by having guns.

 

 

 

Dracos has a rich fantasy life.

See, everybody? Goddess has options and consideration of her tactical environment.

As for the rest of you, there is the following exercise: get a fake handgun, or one that can be dry-fired safely, like a paint-ball gun. First, learn the easiest ways to remove the gun from your friend's hand while relaxed. Just play around with different techniques. Then, while your friend is holding it fairly tightly, in different positions, etc. Youtube must be filled with different techniques that you can try on their own merits.

Next, play a game. You have to disarm your friend before she can squeeze the trigger while the barrel is pointed at you. She knows you're going to disarm her, she just doesn't know when. It's like that game where kids slap each others' hands - you can't move your hand before the slap. It's a fun game. But more importantly, once you get good at it (I admit, this is easier with a teacher to show you how to perform the techniques) you realize how difficult it is for the person holding the gun to get a shot off, and most of the things you do aren't fancy kung-fu moves, they're dirty tricks, like saying, "hold on, I have to tie my shoes" and then disarming. "Cheating" is encouraged. Once you've disarmed your partner, then you switch roles.

If you want to add adrenaline to the mix, load the paintball gun. That shit hurts up close.

But if you get good at the game, a whole world of options is open to you, especially if you try it with different people. Try it with a fake knife!

 

DISCLAIMER: I do not recommend this exercise without a properly trained instructor or appropriate safety equipment.

A lot of people consider that to be the most attractive feature of guns. You show a gun and most people flee rather than see if they can wrestle it from you. Obviously you don't wave it around sloppily. In a few of the news stories I posted here about gun owners defending themselves, a few were about gun owners announcing that they had a gun or showing an intruder a gun and the intruder flees. That pregnant woman I mentioned (http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=8445177) can't use hand to hand combat to make two intruders leave her home. On the other hand, she can get her shotgun and threaten them into leaving. That 85 year old woman (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406185,00.html) is pretty helpless, unless she has a gun. But since she does have a gun she is far more lethal than virtually anyone who thinks that they can break into her house.

The only situations in which you are legal allowed to brandish a gun are those in which there will be an immenent attack on you that has a high likelihood of causing great bodily injury (rape is defined as a form of great bodily injury for this law). So a gun owner waving around his gun to be a big man is violating the law. On the other hand a gun owner forcing someone who is intruding in his home to leave or someone attacking him with a weapon in public to flee is following the law and isn't just 'being a big man' or being sloppy by using a gun.

I'm so glad such is not the case in Canada. If the police receive a call through 911, they are obliged by law to respond, even if they think it's a prank or false report.

That sounds like the way things should be. I really don't understand why courts in the US have always ruled that the police are under no obligation to respond to calls or protect people. If police don't have to respond to call or protect people, exactly what are they supposed to do? I think of it as an arrangement between a city and its police. The police protect the people of that city to the best of their ability and the city pays the police. If the police fail at their jobs, then they should face legal repercussions. Instead they have been given protection from every facing repercussions for refusing to act. It boggles the mind.