Can you use a gun for self defense?
Yes
63.4% (358)
63.4% (358)
No
26.5% (150)
26.5% (150)
other
9.9% (56)
9.9% (56)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Not really. It's not defence per se, it's more countering the threat/committing of violence with the threat/committing of more violence. A shield is for defence. A bulletproof vest is for defence. A gun is for attacking.

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.
My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

... huh?

If you asking "if someone breaks into my home with a weapon, am I allowed to shoot them?" then the answer, if you live in the USA, is "yes".

Is it possible that the person you were talking with was from outside the USA? They might have different laws elsewhere regarding that.

On the other hand, there is the philosophical issue. Can you defend yourself with a gun? No - you can only shoot someone else. Guns can't block other guns - a gun can't be used to defend against an attack. A sword can parry blows from another sword. It can be used defensively.

What a gun CAN do is shoot first, killing (or at least hurting) the assailant before that assailant hurts you. Alternatively, it can be used to frighten off an assailant. Guns are scary.

But again, that's a philosophical point - when people say "defend a house" they mean by shooting the intruder, which as noted is exactly what they can be used to do (assuming the laws in your area allow such a thing).

As to whether or not guns are effective at home defense... I'm not touching that with an three meter pole.

theamazingbean:

Trippy Turtle:
You can in a few very unlikely scenarios, most of those scenarios where shooting someone would be overkill and should get you arrested.
The only time a gun would be useful is if someone is trying to kill you and is bad enough at it to give you time to shoot them. If you are getting mugged and shoot someone, you deserve jail time. Whats more important? Your wallet or someones life?

Do criminals come up and truthfully announce their intentions to you? How are you supposed to tell the difference between a mugging and a rape until the time when drawing a gun is possible has passed? Maybe people should just not rob other people if they don't want to get shot...

FelixG:

Trippy Turtle:
You can in a few very unlikely scenarios, most of those scenarios where shooting someone would be overkill and should get you arrested.
The only time a gun would be useful is if someone is trying to kill you and is bad enough at it to give you time to shoot them. If you are getting mugged and shoot someone, you deserve jail time. Whats more important? Your wallet or someones life?

Honestly? If someone is going to threaten my life over my wallet, I am more than willing to threaten their life over the transgression, then end their life if they decide to press the issue.

The one time I have had to draw my gun, drawing it was enough to discourage further discourse along that particular path.

If they are armed then it changes things a little, but lets not get into the stupidity of allowing everyone a gun. I was thinking along the lines of the offender being unarmed because anywhere with proper laws that is all that normally happens.

I have never touched a gun. I would like to at some point go to a Rifle range and shoot up dem target and pigeons.

I would like to think I could if I had to. I have used BB guns and and quite good with a bow.

In the USA yes you can legally defend yourself with a firearm. I keep several loaded guns in various places (spent the last three years in a neighborhood infested with tweakers). I have had to draw them twice, once when a guy tried to come through my window and once when a a small group of people busted down the back door to my garage, without firing a shot.

unfortunately in states like CA without a castle doctrine or stand your ground law its better to shoot to kill because:
1 warning shots are illegal and are considered reckless endangerment and unlawful discharge and will land you in jail
2 people can sue you for damages and dead men cant sue

People can blather on about how people don't need guns, but I can attest to the need. I have used them in self defense. Untill you are in a situation were you truly need to defend yourself, who are you to tell me i cant. Try waking up in the middle of the night to your bedroom window busting in and tell me you don't want a gun.

Burst6:

I guess that could work. If you're big enough to be a good threat with a melee weapon, and if there's only one intruder, and if you don't have floors that make no noise when you walk, and if your intruder is so bad at what he's doing that he just freezes up when he sees someone charging at him with a baseball bat.

Otherwise you're probably going to get shot if they have a gun, or their friend is going to pick up something blunt and hit you on the back of your head, or the guy is actually much better at fighting than you and will kick your ass. If they have a knife, even if you do beat them you'll probably have a few knife wounds on you. If they have a gun, unless you knock it out of their hands at the start, you're going to get shot. All if takes for them to take you out is to sort of point in your general direction and unload as many shots as possible. There was a news story of some guy in australia who was attacked out of nowhere by some muggers on the escapist a while ago. They hit him over the head with a bat i think, but he could still pull out his gun and kill them.

Don't underestimate how strong 'drop it now!' is. You can defend yourself against a wooden stick. You can't defend yourself against a gun. Even if they're right next to you and the gun is within arms reach, unless you have extensive training you're not going to disarm them without getting shot. If you get shot with a gun you're pretty much down. Maybe dead. All it takes is a movement of a finger.

I find your overabundant use of the word 'if' disturbing, I counted 11 uses, though one was an accident because you meant 'it'.

Your 'if' scenarios can be turned around in my favor too, you know. If I catch him/them off guard, they are usually beaten pretty good. If they are a terrible shot they are boned, the old axiom "Melee weapons don't run out of bullets". If they use knives, I have weapons to keep them at arms length, which still fit for fighting in even the smallest suburban home (sounds like Billy Mays when I say that) If they are intimidated by my size or alarming voice, they would usually flee. According to some studies done on home invasions thwarted by police or inhabitants, Burglars/home invaders are usually cowards (come at night, scared off by the home having a dog, an alarm company sticker, etc.)

Second, friend, the thread title was "can YOU defend yourself with a gun?" I answered honestly, and even more honestly I have to ask. If I took your post to heart, do you really think I would walk into a shop and take gun-self-defense-type classes with the reason being "A guy on the net swayed my belief with his wonderful 'if' statements"? Seriously, I am not trying to sound like a world-class-ass (though it is hard to convey a light-hearted comedic manner through text), but working through peoples replies and showing them 'the benefits of defense with guns' isn't really at topic here, its more about if we as a people can be honest with ourselves and say 'hey that robber dropped his gun, can I use it effectively to stop him from doing anything', I said no.

Well, yes I suppose. If we're avoiding the politics behind it, I've shot plenty of guns in my time and I think, if it came down to it, I'd most certainly use one to hurt the bad guy before he could hurt me.

Well it depends really.

I do know how to use a...

A something Magnum.
A something Semi Auto pistol.

And the Australian ...

I forgot what it was called.... ARG!

The point is that yes I can defend myself with a gun, I wouldn't try to hit them in a critical location (If I'm that good)...

but we all have to remember...
captcha: "Safety first"

EDIT: Although it would be hard to fire... I mean I have never shot anyone before. :/

BishopofAges:
I find your overabundant use of the word 'if' disturbing, I counted 11 uses, though one was an accident because you meant 'it'.

Your 'if' scenarios can be turned around in my favor too, you know. If I catch him/them off guard, they are usually beaten pretty good. If they are a terrible shot they are boned, the old axiom "Melee weapons don't run out of bullets". If they use knives, I have weapons to keep them at arms length, which still fit for fighting in even the smallest suburban home (sounds like Billy Mays when I say that) If they are intimidated by my size or alarming voice, they would usually flee. According to some studies done on home invasions thwarted by police or inhabitants, Burglars/home invaders are usually cowards (come at night, scared off by the home having a dog, an alarm company sticker, etc.)

Second, friend, the thread title was "can YOU defend yourself with a gun?" I answered honestly, and even more honestly I have to ask. If I took your post to heart, do you really think I would walk into a shop and take gun-self-defense-type classes with the reason being "A guy on the net swayed my belief with his wonderful 'if' statements"? Seriously, I am not trying to sound like a world-class-ass (though it is hard to convey a light-hearted comedic manner through text), but working through peoples replies and showing them 'the benefits of defense with guns' isn't really at topic here, its more about if we as a people can be honest with ourselves and say 'hey that robber dropped his gun, can I use it effectively to stop him from doing anything', I said no.

I wasn't talking about how good you think you are at defending yourself with a gun, i was replying about how you seem to underestimate how strong a gun can be in these situations and overestimate the effectiveness of clubs. Both of them may be equally effective against one idiot robbing your house, but if you stumble across two mentally unstable thugs looking at you a bat isn't going to protect you.

Also a robber may be a terrible shot, but they can get lucky. If they do get lucky, you're going to the hospital or worse. It's the same with knives. You may try to keep them at arms length as best as you can but fights get confused and frenzied. You may try to keep them a good length away but when you're both in an adrenaline feuled blur that knife may do damage to you. Yeah they may not get lucky and you may beat them into submission without getting a scratch, but it's a sizable risk. One that i personally wouldn't want to take.

EDIT: As you may have noticed, the new word of the day is "may". Hypotheticals, eh?

People voted "No"?

I suggest for them to break into my house in the middle of the night dressed in black to see how their argument holds strong. Don't be surprised to leave with some slugs in your ass, though.

Nope, haven't a clue how to operate a gun safetly due to the whole 'Living in Australia' thing and not really caring for guns anyways. I do have a mallet and sledge hammer in my room, however, just encase someone does attempt to break in.

Legally, I'm not entirely sure of the system in Australia - pretty sure it's one where the criminal can get legal defense and sue the home owner if they are injured while breaking in (Don't quote me on this, but I remember a story a few years back where a robber sued the woman he robbed because he tripped over her table and fucked up his leg - pretty sure he won too, which is just disappointing).

Now, is the threat of legal repercussions going to be enough for me to not smack someone who is threatening me in my own home with a big dirty hammer? Not particularly, no. I'd much prefer if the sight of me coming at them with a big hammer is enough for them to get the fuck out of my house, but if they attack me I'm gonna go for the sweet spots and break a few bones. My legal defense will be 'If he didn't want his bones broken, he shouldn't have broken into my home'.

StormShaun:
Well it depends really.

I do know how to use a...

A something Magnum.
A something Semi Auto pistol.

And the Australian ...

I forgot what it was called.... ARG!

The point is that yes I can defend myself with a gun, I wouldn't try to hit them in a critical location (If I'm that good)...

but we all have to remember...
captcha: "Safety first"

EDIT: Although it would be hard to fire... I mean I have never shot anyone before. :/

I think the rifle name you are looking for is the Steyr Aug


Though the soldiers rifle is heavily modified from the standard version.

FelixG:
Snip

Ah, thank you good sir. I easily forget that rifle's name since I lasted fired it in 2010.
Also I did forgot to point out that guy did have a customized non-standard rifle.

All the less I did get to know the Steyr very well during 2010...
but shooting someone with THAT... well I just hope I wouldn't have to shoot a human with it.
Mutants may count.

Edit: Sorry I crapped up on the quote. :/

Well guns are illegal in my country so can't legally use them anyway and well I just wouldn't. I have taken some basic self defense classes so I can defend myself and am currently looking for a different class to take, I am thinking Krav Maga.

Guns kill and injure, it is their only purpose. Just bleh.

I don't own a gun, but if I did I imagine I'd be able to use it for self defense. You're allowed to shoot someone if it's in self defense and if a criminal came onto my property and did anything to threaten me it would be pretty easy to claim that.

Of course I can. I've played FPS, I know how to iron sights.

FelixG:
I think the rifle name you are looking for is the Steyr Aug

It's an F88 AUSteyr variant (either F88S-A1 or F88 GLA), made locally by Thales Australia under licence from Steyr Mannlicher.

Though the soldiers rifle is heavily modified from the standard version.

Not really. The original F88 that has the integrated sight set up of the the Steyr AUG has pretty much been phased out of service with frontline combat units and replaced with the F88S series which replaces the integrated sight picatinny rail instead.

Burst6:

I wasn't talking about how good you think you are at defending yourself with a gun, i was replying about how you seem to underestimate how strong a gun can be in these situations and overestimate the effectiveness of clubs. Both of them may be equally effective against one idiot robbing your house, but if you stumble across two mentally unstable thugs looking at you a bat isn't going to protect you.

Also a robber may be a terrible shot, but they can get lucky. If they do get lucky, you're going to the hospital or worse. It's the same with knives. You may try to keep them at arms length as best as you can but fights get confused and frenzied. You may try to keep them a good length away but when you're both in an adrenaline feuled blur that knife may do damage to you. Yeah they may not get lucky and you may beat them into submission without getting a scratch, but it's a sizable risk. One that i personally wouldn't want to take.

EDIT: As you may have noticed, the new word of the day is "may". Hypotheticals, eh?

I understand you getting an over and underestimation from my original post, but you need to understand is that I do not trust myself with a gun, period. In a moment of shock or rush I could turn around and shoot someone I didn't want to, or I could be holding a club and simply bonk someone I didn't want to. That's what I am more concerned about, my own craze level and adrenaline rush during an invasion does not optimize my using a gun in anyway.
Could I go into a class and learn to keep calm and focus during these situations? Yes, but I lack the funds to pay for such a class.
Do I trust myself with a stick more than I trust myself with a gun, yes.
Is there a risk to me not using the "Best point and shoot instant incapacitate/death item in the known world" during an invasion? Yes, but thankfully gun violence in my neighborhood is low and usually between people who know one another and have a severe disagreement or anger management problems.

as a side note I'd like to add that the big news these days is never on home invasion murders, they seem pretty rare except in the regional news about someone's ex-bf going nuts or something like that. The big topic these days is public gun violence, and I will also add that I do not trust myself in that situation even more because of bystanders and whatnot. In a bank robbery setting, I also fear that I'd be the guy in the washroom when it starts and end up whipping a fire extinguisher at the robber's head, but that is some Hollywood nonsense.

Being in California, I have the legal right, the personal ability and the equipment to handle most things that would invade my house.

Would I go for it? Depends on the situation.

If there was only one, I'd put a round in their leg. If there was one, but basically unarmed, I'd threaten and he'd run. Multiple unarmed, put a round in the leg of one, threaten others, continue firing as necessary. Multiple armed, probably just try and get out after quietly calling 911.

Given I felt I could take my attackers, I would use force before avoiding anything.

Trippy Turtle:
You can in a few very unlikely scenarios, most of those scenarios where shooting someone would be overkill and should get you arrested.
The only time a gun would be useful is if someone is trying to kill you and is bad enough at it to give you time to shoot them. If you are getting mugged and shoot someone, you deserve jail time. Whats more important? Your wallet or someones life?

Well that just depends on how much cash I have in there!

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

If there was only one, I'd put a round in their leg. If there was one, but basically unarmed, I'd threaten and he'd run. Multiple unarmed, put a round in the leg of one, threaten others, continue firing as necessary. Multiple armed, probably just try and get out after quietly calling 911.

Given I felt I could take my attackers, I would use force before avoiding anything.

Another thing I cant stand saying you should or even could shoot someone in the leg or arm. First of all I practice a lot, every weekend I put about 200 rounds down range with my handgun, which I use in competition and for home defense, I can hit about 2 inch groups at 25 meters. Now in action shoots I shoot about half as accurately and the only thing added is small movement and a timer. Imagine how much stress you are under being woken up, half asleep, and scared s***less because some one kicked in your door/window and tell me you have not only the presence of mind but also the ability to reliably hit a leg or arm. remember you are in your house so chances are this guy is less then a few yards away and can close that gap probably as fast as you could line up another shot for their leg/arm. I know I couldn't, I know most police couldn't hell most police officers only practice when they have to pass their qualifications that is why they are told to aim center mass and not for appendages because it isn't easy hitting a leg or arm.

TopazFusion:

And assuming the perpetrator survives your attack, they get paid compensation by the government.

Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.

TopazFusion:

Headdrivehardscrew:
Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.

Oh no, the perp still gets into trouble for it, but so do you if you use any sort of violence against them.

The point being; all forms of vigilantism are extremely frowned upon here.

how is defending yourself vigilantism?

Sure, EVERYTHING can be used to protect yourself. I believe everyone deserves a chance to protect themselves. Would be nice though if that was the only reason they were used.

TopazFusion:

gufftroad:
how is defending yourself vigilantism?

Vigilantism: The act of taking the law into one's own hands.

In other words, this task is best left up to better trained and better equipped law enforcement personnel, not everyday civilians.

I don't know about you but i don't have a cop in my house 24/7 so in a break in situation who is better trained or equipped to defend myself then me.

also police here in the great USA have no obligation to defend citizens a brief google search will bring of dozens of SOCTUS cases were they ruled that police have no obligation to defend citizens although they do have to defend people in their custody

I don't own a gun, so the question is more or less moot. But here goes.

Any fool can employ a gun in an attempt to protect themselves. They can also employ a bat, a knife, or a kumquat. It's easy (less easy with the kumquat) to make an attempt at intimidation or, failing that, violence. Whether success would result is a very different question. Even trained professionals frequently miss targets in crisis.

If you are asking whether I am capable with a gun, the answer is I'm neither an expert nor a stranger. I don't shoot often, but I used to hit 8 clay pigeons out of 10 pretty regularly with a 12-gauge, and do all right with handguns. Much more importantly, I do not panic in crisis, I just go cold and make things happen. You would not want me pointing a gun at you.

If you're asking whether I have moral reservations against using guns on bad guys, I have none. Scumbags don't deserve that sort of consideration. Don't get me wrong, shooting is a last resort. I would certainly point it at them and tell them to fuck off first. Then comes the warning shot. If they're stupid enough to advance on me after that, it's going to cost them a kneecap.

I believe self-defense is legal in my area. Honestly, I don't care enough to find out. In that moment of crisis, I would have a very short list of concerns, and legality would not be on it. I have the right to protect myself by whatever means I deem necessary in the moment. That is not to say I have the right to use full automatic fire against someone who calls me a rude name. It is to say if I am in danger of serious and immediate physical harm I may shut down the attacker by whatever means I have to hand. As far as I'm concerned, no law can take away that right. (Yes, I know self-defense is illegal in many areas. I also know some of you think there is no such thing as justifiable violence. Spare me the counterarguments, please, I've heard them all before. )

gufftroad:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:

If there was only one, I'd put a round in their leg. If there was one, but basically unarmed, I'd threaten and he'd run. Multiple unarmed, put a round in the leg of one, threaten others, continue firing as necessary. Multiple armed, probably just try and get out after quietly calling 911.

Given I felt I could take my attackers, I would use force before avoiding anything.

Another thing I cant stand saying you should or even could shoot someone in the leg or arm. First of all I practice a lot, every weekend I put about 200 rounds down range with my handgun, which I use in competition and for home defense, I can hit about 2 inch groups at 25 meters. Now in action shoots I shoot about half as accurately and the only thing added is small movement and a timer. Imagine how much stress you are under being woken up, half asleep, and scared s***less because some one kicked in your door/window and tell me you have not only the presence of mind but also the ability to reliably hit a leg or arm. remember you are in your house so chances are this guy is less then a few yards away and can close that gap probably as fast as you could line up another shot for their leg/arm. I know I couldn't, I know most police couldn't hell most police officers only practice when they have to pass their qualifications that is why they are told to aim center mass and not for appendages because it isn't easy hitting a leg or arm.

But that's the point, I am in my house so the distance is incredibly short. I can make that shot. Regardless of how disoriented I was, I could absolutely hit a leg at 1 to 2 yards. If he was any further away, some buckshot would make aiming fairly easy.

If I didn't feel I could make said shot, center mass would be fine.

TopazFusion:

Headdrivehardscrew:
Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.

Oh no, the perp still gets into trouble for it, but so do you if you use any sort of violence against them.

The point being; all forms of vigilantism are extremely frowned upon here.

OK.

Hmmm. So, knowing a bit or two about human nature, I must ask: Are your fellow citizens steadfastly marching on their way to become peace-loving Eloi, as in natural victims just opting for splendid ignorance and, at best, fatalism, or have perpetrators already started disappearing?

Or does your country (Oz?) have a thriving insurance industry?

Or are you still working on getting really, really good at pinning people down without causing them too much discomfort?

Yeah, I must apologize, I still don't get it.

Yes, you can, but the chances that it will ever improve a situation in anyway are lower than the chances that you will just hurt yourself. Many gun owners (like myself) underwent some kind of firearms safety course or have learned how to properly handle a gun, but often these weapons are handled by those who have no business operating a can opener, let alone a full loaded weapon.

I don't know whether to laugh at or be terrified by the number of people talking about using a gun to non lethally neutralize a threat. Any situation that prompts the use of a fire arm should be immediate enough that you would not have the opportunity to aim for some sort of magical non lethal area. Of couse such an area doesn't exist, since bullets can also ricochet off of bone and cause remote trauma through hydrostatic shock. While it is true that small arms only yield a ten to twenty percent fatality rate so long as the victim can be given proper medical treatment, all uses of a firearm should be considered lethal and should be concerned with neutralizing the target as quickly as possible. Further more, aiming for a "non-lethal" area such as the the legs or the arms is a bad idea because it increases the likely hood of the round flying off somewhere and hitting someone that isn't the intended target. Therefore, always shoot for center mass.

On the the other hand, while it is both possible and advisable to attempt to use a firearm to non violently deal with a hostile individual, a weapon should only be produced when one intends to use it. If you pull a fire arm and don't have the ability to use it, you run a very high risk of someone taking your gun away and using it against you or someone else.

AlexanderPeregrine:
This really should have been put somewhere near the start of the thread, but here's a video where police officers discuss the "stop the bad guy" situation and simulate it for a couple people of varying non-professional skill levels:

Oh boy, someone went and rustled my jimmies.

Ok, let's do a realistic simulation of what it's like to be in a active shooter situation. First, we're going to have the students engage a threat from a seated position, never mind the fact that this is something that most cops would have trouble doing. Second, since safety gear is trendy these days, we should give everyone the most cumbersome eye protection money can buy and introduce a threat before the student can orient themselves to it. Lastly, we'd better prepare for a worst case scenario, so the shooters will be informed of both the presence and location of the only armed individual in the room, and we will have them completely ignore the dense flow of students out of the room. Sounds legit.

Hmmm..
How to answer this.

-Do I have the capability to fire a gun? Yes.
-Can a gun be used in a defensive (or counter-offensive depending on your perspective) fashion? Yes.
-Is it immediately practical for defense? Not unless you keep your gun with you, or the cabinet/safe/drawer is an an easy access area.
-Is it immediately practical legally? Not unless you're in America, Turkey or....Columbia/Honduras. Well, America's legal, every other place with a high violence rate just doesn't care all too much. But the law is easy to avoid so long as you have a bathtub, a sharp enough object, some garbage bags and matches....or, so I'm told.
-Would I do it if someone busted in? Nope. I'd either use my hands or my knives. I don't go ANYWHERE without at least 1 knife. Seriously, I sleep with it, I shit with it, I eat with it, knife never leaves my side.

Can? Yes
Will? Not likely
Should? definitely not.

TopazFusion:
Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.

upon doing some research(read spending 10 min on google) i found 3 well reported home invasions in as many months in New Zealand as well as a total registered number of 230,000 gun owners and an estimated 1.1 million guns there are also a few machine gun collectors in New Zealand.

P.S. its funny that your police want to make toy guns more distinctive after sieging a house over one also why do they loose so much equippment

I can, however I prefer to use something lighter that's not only easier to aim with, but is also more capable of doing non fatal damage to my target, while also being more likely to just incapacitate them. Something like a pistol is a bitch to aim properly with and in my opinion, they're generally finnicky and not suited for the purpose of defending yourself.

I prefer something in my house like you know, a bat or a knife...

I've a pretty big dagger on display in my room, considering how the blade is curved, hooked and quite sharp I think that I can use that more effectively than I can use a pistol.

No, I can't. I would like to believe though that after 3 years of training, I have a chance with my fists, even against someone with a weapon.

Besides, I am not a very big fan of them.

TopazFusion:
Well, for whatever reason, home invasions are rare here (New Zealand). In a country of 4.5 million people, we get a home invasion, maybe once a year or so.

I can only assume that it's because guns are scarce here, and difficult to get your hands on.
Launching a home invasion with a knife, sword, machete, axe, etc, just takes too much effort.
Not having the ability to point a metal barrel at someone and pull the trigger (or threaten to pull the trigger) is apparently enough of a deterrent for most people to not bother trying to 'home invade'.

Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.

Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

Frankly I think USA is full of weapon fanatics who would happily plant landmines around their homes and store grenades in their dishwashers if it meant they could feel "safer", hahaha. I know gun fanatics aren't specific to any 1 country, but USA has to have by far the most lunatics I have seen when it comes to whoring weapons and making absurd excuses for why they should be able to own such dangerous things.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked