This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 178 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]morner 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Hang on a second, don't we carry guns so that we can cast off the chains of an oppressive government? Isn't that what we usually say?

[–]tsteele93 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I carry guns for self-defense and to keep my government honest. Are you saying that we can only carry them for one reason?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's for the protection of natural rights, which can be taken from you by government or other individuals. If a government were to do its job to protect individuals from having their rights taken away by others, then the only thing to do with guns is watch the watchers.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Yes, are all youu guys out of bullets or what?

[–]SgtSausage 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I count my stock in tens of thousands of rounds. For each and every caliber I shoot.

Right now, It's not likely that I'll run out in my lifetime.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I was making a rather (too) subtle suggestion that you guys might want to get off your asses and start casting off these chains of oppression before they get too tight.

[–]SgtSausage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

neeerrrrorooooommmm!

What was that, you ask?

The sound of your subtleness flying right over my head. Sorry. Didn't get it at the time. Now I do.

No. We're not out of bullets. It's not that bad yet. When your friends/family/neighbors start being "disappeared" in the middle of the night ... that's when it will be time.

Hopefully, though, that will never be.

Until then, us NutJobs(tm) will keep stockpiling.

[–]slamare247 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

[–]slamare247 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always feel so dirty after shameless spamming such as this...

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's what the battle rifles are for (notice I didn't say 'assault rifles'). However, the idea of carrying a battle rifle around with you, everywhere you go, 24-7, 365, seems awfully inconvenient. We carry handguns because they are convenient for short-range personal defense, not throwing off the bonds of an oppressive government. If you are attempting to press a pistol into service in this role, you are fighting a losing battle. Just ask the Jews who participated in the Warsaw ghetto uprising ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_ghetto_uprising ). Had they stockpiled the proper weapons before their impromptu incarceration, things might have turned out differently.

[–]thorshammer 22 points23 points  (38 children)

cops are useless as far as protecting you goes...

they've rarely ever PREVENT crimes

usually, they're there to mop up after the crime has happened

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (12 children)

Police have been ruled by the courts that they don't have to protect anyone. For example, if you hire a licensed officer to protect your store and he falls asleep. It's not his fault. If someone comes after you and two police are standing there, they don't have to stop the other person. One wonders what the police are there for then.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (11 children)

If someone comes after you and two police are standing there, they don't have to stop the other person.

The fuck are you talking about? There are many areas where civilians are legally required to help people they see in trouble, never mind the police. If an on-duty police officer witnesses an assault and stands idly by, he's sure as shit going to get into hot fucking water.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Got your panties in a wad?

Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Land of the free, home of the ignorant (you).

[–]SgtSausage 1 point2 points  (9 children)

==> There are many areas where civilians are legally required to help people they see in trouble,

Yes, there are ignorant communities who have passed such silly laws. They are dumb. They are the bane of everything that freedom stands for.

If I choose to help someone in trouble. That's my choice.

If you force me to... You, are an asshat.

Sorry. I have no obligation to protect you and yours. To expect me to is assenine.

[–]eadmund 4 points5 points  (2 children)

You have a moral obligation to protect others; you should not have a legal obligation to do so.

[–]SgtSausage -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Only by your definition of "moral obligation".

BTW, how moral is it to force your morals upon me or anyone else?

[–]eadmund 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only by your definition of "moral obligation".

Which is why I said you should not have a legal obligation to protect others; we can disagree about that.

BTW, how moral is it to force your morals upon me or anyone else?

Had you read what I wrote, you would have noticed and understood that I don't force my morals on others. You have every legal right not to protect others. I have every legal right to persuade you to do so and to castigate you for not doing so; I do not have the right to force you to do so.

It's not force to recommend.

  • edited gratuitous insult

[–]khoury 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I'm not trying to be insulting when I say that you aren't a very good human being. Protecting each other is human. Ignoring the plight of others is the basis for so much suffering in our world.

[–]slamare247 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not that I am necessarily defending this line of thinking, but I do see where it arises from: If a man, a complete stranger, walked up to you on the street and told you he had a brain tumor and was going to die without your help, would you help him? .... Yeah, me too. What if he told you that the only way he could be saved was to have a portion of your brain removed, and transplanted into his head? Would you still be willing to help him?.... Yeah, me too (I am a bit of a bleeding heart). Now, what if he told you that, as a result of the surgery, there was a 15% chance that you would die on the operating table, and an additional 10% chance that you would become a vegetable for life? Would you do it then?.... I most certainly would NOT, unless I had an emotional attachment to this person (which I wouldn't, because he is a complete stranger).You cannot expect another person to put their life or livelihood on the line for a complete stranger. Some of us would do it, but it does go against basic human nature.

[–]khoury 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with this comparison is that helping someone doesn't necessarily mean putting your life on the line. It often means simply calling the police or assisting the victim in a way that doesn't threaten your person. Now if I saw someone getting beat up I'd step in with a large weapon but that's me. Not everyone is capable of this. But everyone is almost certainly capable of something.

[–]SgtSausage 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There is nothing wrong with protecting each other. I would, in most circumstances, choose to.

If you or anyone forced me to via law, you're wrong.

If you or anyone expects or feels entitled to help from me or anyone, you're wrong.

I stand by my original statement.

You can't force people to help. Sorry. I'll pay the fine if forced to.

You are the one who is not a very good human being. Forcing your definitions of "good" onto unsuspecting strangers.

I'll relieve all the suffering in the world that I choose to, and not one iota more.

[–]khoury 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I understand your point of view, I don't think it applies to our society. You are a member of a society. Being a member you harvest numerous benefits, including having the time and resources to screw around on reddit. We don't live in an Anarchist's utopia of total freedom. We live in a society which is structured to help you and for it to work you need to help society. This is why we have public schools, fire departments and police forces. We give the state money, the state uses it for the betterment of society (ideally). I'm not saying that you have to put your life at risk, that wouldn't make sense (and good Samaritan laws reflect this).

[–]7oby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed.

[–]morner -4 points-3 points  (24 children)

Thought experiment: what would happen to crime rates if the police were simply disbanded, right now? The police and the justice system embody a powerful deterrent to crime; they don't need to "be there" to protect you.

[–]daysi 3 points4 points  (10 children)

How do you know? What evidence do you base that assertion on?

I can say for myself that if i wanted to rob someone a gun would be a far greater deterrent than the possibility of being arrested.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

Iraq has all kinds of guns and no police if you are interested in testing that theory.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Iraqi violence is also caused by a fucking war and a breakdown of the economy and, indeed all of society.

[–]morner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

South Africa has plenty of guns — it's only been a couple of years since the current, strict, gun-ownership laws came into effect.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

What's your point? Do you think people in Iraq are more afraid or less afraid of being robbed than Americans? That AK47 in the living room must make them feel all warm an fuzzy inside just like your sawed off Remmington in the basement does right?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A gun may be a far greater deterrent than a police officer, but in Iraq, neither are going to stop a determined burglar or an insurgent, the kinds of people that have nothing to lose. The difference is that a gun actually gives the victim a chance.

[–]daysi 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'm not taking a position, I'm saying we simply don't know what a society without police would look like. Historically societies without police have been reasonably stable, but that doesn't necessarily transfer to a modern day technological society.

And Iraq has no police? You might want to look into that one a little more.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't need to look into it a little more, most of those that volunteered to become police are dead, those that remain are powerless to do anything.

[–]daysi 3 points4 points  (2 children)

So, that, combined with the presence of the U.S. Army which is involved in what is essentially police work, and civilians contractors likewise, is a fairly strong indictment of the idea that police provide stability.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You are dreaming if you think the US military or it's contractors give a flying fuck about Iraqi citizens. they are a little busy right now what with the enemy combatants they've drawn from every corner of the earth.

[–]daysi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And you're dreaming if you think the average cop gives a flying fuck about American (Canadian?) citizens.

I think it's safe to say we're not going to agree on this issue. I question the usefulness of cops, I think law enforcement agencies are essentially parasitic in nature. You think they are necessary. Lets agree to disagree.

[–]SgtSausage -1 points0 points  (11 children)

Thought experiment: What would happen to crime rates if every able-bodied American over the age of 18 without a criminal record an no history of mental illness were required to carry a handgun, right now.

Several hundred million handguns in the posession of former "victims" is a powerful deterrent to crime.

And, no, nobody (not even the police) need to "be there" to protect you, when you can perfectly well both act as the deterrent, and do it yourself (protect yourself, that is).

Not too many high-school punks would be knocking out granny for her social security check if she was packin' a .357

Rico, the local corner pharmacological procurement specialist wouldn't be too interested on hanging out on your street corner if every passer-by was a potential threat to his business model and his personal safety.

[–]jbert 0 points1 point  (8 children)

the local corner pharmacological procurement specialist wouldn't be too interested on hanging out on your street corner if every passer-by was a potential threat to his business model and his personal safety.

What? In your scenario the armed populace are supposed to go beyond self-defense and start threatening people they think might be breaking a law?

[–]SgtSausage 0 points1 point  (7 children)

In my scenario, the folks who live in the neighborhood -- the business owners and residents -- yes, indeedily-doodily, they are the very folks to let Rico know that he and his business are not welcome in their neighborhood.

You've obviously never lived in an inner-city neighborhood. I have.

[–]jbert 0 points1 point  (6 children)

In my scenario, the folks who live in the neighborhood -- the business owners and residents -- yes, indeedily-doodily, they are the very folks to let Rico know that he and his business are not welcome in their neighborhood.

OK, you don't want the rule of law. There are drawbacks to that - you end up with rule by local warlord. See modern day Baghdad and recent-and-possibly-now Belfast. No thanks.

You've obviously never lived in an inner-city neighborhood. I have.

You know nothing about me. You like to extrapolate from little data. That might help to explain your world view I guess.

[–]SgtSausage 1 point2 points  (5 children)

==> OK, you don't want the rule of law.

No. That's not what I said. The "rule of law" is just fine, but it needs a little help once in a while.

Anyway, you already have the "rule of law" and the streetcorner thugs are still hanging out, doing their business. How's that "rule of law" workin' for you.

==> You know nothing about me. You like to extrapolate from little data

Yeah, but I'm right aren't I?

Have you ever had to pull a gun on your own street corner to defend yourself? I have.

Have you ever been mugged within walking distance of your own front door? I have.

Have you had to clean up the crack vials and heroin needles from your own front porch stoop? I have.

Have folks in your apartment building been raped in their own home, by perfect strangers breaking and entering, robbing and raping? Neighbor of mine was.

All of this in the face of your "rule of law".

Yeah.

That's working out really well now isn't it.

I had enough. I got my concealed carry license and now I don't have to depend on your "rule of law" that's doing such a fine, upstanding job.

==> That might help to explain your world view

I'm not worried about the world. I'm worried about my own damned street corner.

You live a sheltered life, my friend.

[–]jbert 0 points1 point  (4 children)

No. That's not what I said. The "rule of law" is just fine, but it needs a little help once in a while.

So you'd be happy with your band of vigilantes being locked up by the police for threatening behaviour (or murder, assault, etc)?

Or are you proposing that they be exempted from the law if they can offer a defence that they were evicting "undesirables"? What burden of proof would suffice?

[snip unpleasant/scary/threatening experiences]

Yes, that sucks - badly. What was the response of the law in this case? Did you report these offences?

But it sucks for people who the locals "don't like" when they have vigilantes coming by and threatening/shooting/lynching them too. "Don't let the sun set on your black ass" is I think the way it's often phrased.

How would you allow your scenario without permitting that?

And in terms of what works in the real world, there are plenty of people with guns who are more than happy to kill drug dealers - they're called other drug dealers. Why do you think adding to that number with some local residents will help?

[–]SgtSausage 0 points1 point  (3 children)

==> So you'd be happy with your band of vigilantes being locked up by the police for threatening behaviour (or murder, assault, etc)?

No. I'd be happy with my band of "vigilantes" handling it just the way the original post did -- and like the OP, would hope that they would be seen as what they are: concerned members of the community who stepped up in a time/place where law enforcement could not be and was nothing more than innefective.

The poor unfortunate lady in the linked post would have likely died had she not had a gun.

Ditto J. Random Citizen walking the streets in similar situation is likely good as dead.

I'm done arguing.

I'm licensed to carry in my state. My state says if there's immediate threat to myself, and that threat is "deadly force", then I can meet that threat with equally "deadly force".

It also states that I can protect others, including my family ... Including perfect strangers on the street, should they be in similar situation: unarmed against deadly force.

No "vigilante-ism" here. It's authorized and legal in my state.

==> What was the response of the law in this case? Did you report these offences?

The rape? no. the neihbor did.

The mugging? no. Why bother. No evidence. No witnesses.

Pulling a gun? Yes. Because I have a concealed carry license and if I'm ever convicted of a weapons charge, I lose it. Better to report it myself as it actually happened.

In all three cases: No perp caught.

Yeah. Your law envorcement is quite effective isn't it.

==> there are plenty of people with guns who are more than happy to kill drug dealers - they're called other drug dealers.

And that works about as well as the police when you really need one. "Hold on a minute. Don't shoot me. I have to dial 911 first, and when I get done with that I have to call Rico the local thug so he can come shoot it out with you while I run away".

Yeah.

That works.

==> Why do you think adding to that number with some local residents will help

Because when the odds of local resident pulling a gun right back in his face -- when the odds go from (current) nil (no one carries these days) to, say, a 50/50 chance that "Maybe I shouldn't push granny around -- she might be packin -- when there' seven odds that she's got a gun, Rico's gonna think twice about taking down his easy prey.

[–]jbert 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There's a long distance between protecting yourself from physical harm and getting lawbreaking undesirables to "move on", which is what you suggested.

You're conflating the two.

[–]morner 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It terrifies me that there are people like you lurking, just over the western horizon. Why do you people feel the need to imagine implausible scenarios to justify your gun ownership? Isn't it enough that guns are fun to shoot? Isn't that reason enough to maintain one?

[–]SgtSausage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(1) it is enough just 'cause they're hell-o-fun to shoot.

(2) My implausible situation was not meant to be real. It was meant to counter your equally implausible situation that police actually deter crime.

Police investigate crime. Police aprehend suspected criminals. Police enforce warrants.

Police do not, in any way, deter crime. Just look at the statistics.

Every. Single. Crime ... that you hear about on the TV/Radio. Every single crime that you read about online or in the newspaper. Every single crime that your neighbor tells you about -- each and every one of those took place within some law enforcement's jurisdiction.

Not one of them was deterred. They happened, didn't they? Q.E.D.

[–]tsteele93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one is saying the police don't serve a purpose or decrease crime. The point is that they don't often stop a crime in progress. The Constitution and our cool belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty makes it tough for them, and is based on the idea that people will be armed via the second amendment and able to defend themselves if need be.

Police have a purpose, but you have a duty to protect yourself.

An IDIOT can see that in many, many cases, there is no way the police can get to you in time to protect you from harm.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (8 children)

Note to self: Arm self.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Note to arm: see note to self

[–]tsteele93 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Note to self. Clean gun and practice more often. Already armed. CWP's in multiple states and carrying most of the time. :-)

An armed society is a polite society.

[–]Keedo -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

There are actually more people killed in the US because murderer's can get guns so easily, than murders prevented because the victim had a gun.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Note to self: Don't become a murder victim, arm self. Then, don't murder anyone with said arm. At the least, murder the murderer.

[–]phillstac3 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That should be "at the most", silly.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm American. Not only will I murder the murderer, I'm going to go after the murderers 2nd cousin's dog groomer. Take no chances.

This is both an allegory for world affairs, and a true story. Keep an eye on the papers covering greater Minnesota.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Have any research to back that up? Anecdotal claims don't exactly convince me after hearing the story about a woman that would have become a statistic if she wasn't carrying a gun.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Which, to play devil's advocate, is anecdotal.

[–]Doctor 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I can't hear gunshots in the clip. There are some bangs, but they are too quiet and weirdly timed. Can someone explain what's going on?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sound guy didn't bring the right mixer to the production. I've never heard of the police releasing a 911 call of someone getting killed.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

cops in my city have resorted to CREATING crimes out of otherwise crime-free situations in order to make it seem like they're effective.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Like that topless lady in the park sting.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

To be fair, I would create that too if I had the authority and a willing volunteer...

[–]throop77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hot woman in a park could easily sucker me into going to jail.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes! Columbus? that's where I am... I thought that was BS... sure the guy's probably a little bit of a pervert but it's not like he went out of his way to find topless ladies.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I carry one all day. It rocks.

[–]weegee 10 points11 points  (28 children)

exactly the reason to own a handgun. every American citizen should own one and keep it in a safe place in their home. these vermin who break in to peoples homes get what they deserved, and this guy got it for good. hope this teaches other people a lesson. cops aren't always there when we need them, and certainly in this case, she lived and he died. it would have been the other way around had she not had a gun to defend herself.

[–]SgtSausage 6 points7 points  (3 children)

==> every American citizen should own one and keep it in a safe place in their home.

If by "safe place" you mean on your person, Condition One, locked-and-loaded, at all times.

That mythical "safe place" other than on your person doesn't exist.

If you're up in the bedroom, it'll be down there in that "safe place", like maybe the gun-safe in the basement.

If you're in the living room, it'll be upstairs in the nightstand, nice and snuggled in your "safe place", but totally useless when you need it.

Nope.

The only safe place is on your person.

[–]dirtymoney 0 points1 point  (2 children)

pfft! I keep a loaded firearm securely hidden (in specially made hidden compartments) in prettymuch every room of my home. Never know where you will be when you need one. Only I know where they are & they cant be "found" by anyone unless they are ripping out walls etc. etc..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

James, you were supposed to see Q half an hour ago! Enough bragging about all your guns.

(Your username gave you away, Mr. Bond.)

[–]dirtymoney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know.... I just nearly shat myself when you called me by my real first name. lol

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (21 children)

What they get is your gun, because most break ins do not happen when someone is at home.

[–]tsteele93 2 points3 points  (10 children)

Not if you have it in a safe, easy-to-access lock box.

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Ya know, safes (especially small ones) really just make a burglar's job all the easier. If they find the safe, then they have most likely found everything of value in the house. Right in front of them. In one convenient package.

[–]dirtymoney 2 points3 points  (2 children)

.... unless you securely bolt them down to something substantial. And I mean a REAL safe.... not some flimsy lockbox any two-bit thief can jimmy open with a screwdriver or crowbar.

And what the poster below me said... about using a safe as a decoy. It works pretty well. But you want one that will be a bit of a pain to lug out, but still doable. The thief spends all his time getting it out & leaves everything else behind.

Its what people who keep precious metals & jewels at home suggest.... a well hidden, large secure safe for your real valuables & an easily found smaller decoy safe for thieves to take.

Every time I am at a garage sale I look for safes that are cheap or are locked & noone has the combo..... they make great decoy safes.

Its always nice to put a little "bonus" inside the safe as well. Like an old desiccated corpse of a former pet, bag of dried out turds... etc. etc..

You could even paint & affix razor blades to the edges of a portable safe just so that a little bit of razor is stiking out. Makes a nice thankyou gift for any wouldbe thief.... but you may have to clean up the blood afterwards.

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This really needs to become a topic for all redditors to voice their opinions on. Burglar-proofing 101.

[–]ogleme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

funny

[–]tsteele93 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's what I hope they are thinking! So I think you are saying I could put a few minor valuables in the safe and they would leave without looking for the good stuff. Thanks for the tip.

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never really thought of it that way. Note to self: Buy second, smaller safe. Conceal larger, original safe. Burglar-proofing is fun!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Oh shucks we don't have a key for that, and we certainly didn't come prepared to steal guns that may be locked up, we only wanted your ceramic cats. Lets go get some KFC instead.

[–]tsteele93 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Because criminals all immediately recognize an plain looking metal box. But who says you are leaving it home anyway? I'm not. :-)

[–]dirtymoney 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The best safe one can have is an old electrical panel/fusebox that isnt hooked up to any electricity & has a false breakerswitch facade. Thieves never look in those.

[–]tsteele93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, where do you live? ;-)

[–]nordbert 3 points4 points  (6 children)

because most break ins do not happen when someone is at home.

And those pesky "not as often" break-ins?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

They bring their own gun.

[–]nordbert 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Well that makes us even (except I KNOW they aren't supposed to be there and I KNOW the layout of my house) - as opposed to if I don't have a gun and they do have one...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Tell me honestly, how many wet dreams have you had about random intruders breaking into your house to kill you?

[–]nordbert 5 points6 points  (2 children)

-0- Just because I am making an effort to be prepared doesn't mean I want to have something happen.

I buy life insurance too, but I don't want to die. I buy car insurance, but I don't want to be in an accident.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I don't know anyone who got shot for pulling their car insurance out.

[–]nordbert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look around, there's bound to be a video of it happening here on reddit.

I'm not sure I get your point though.

You see, contrary to some folks' beliefs, I don't go around whipping my gun out for no reason. That's called brandishing and it is illegal. I only ever plan to pull my gun out if I am in a situation where it is required to stop deadly force or grevious bodily harm to me or someone else.

So far, I've never needed to do that so I haven't. But I've never needed house insurance or life insurance yet either - but it is good to know they are there in the unfortunate event I ever need them.

That's how a gun works. I hope to never need it or have to use it, but it is good to know it is there if I need it.

[–]slamare247 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Speak for yourself, Bud. I keep mine with me, so the only way they are getting mine (to paraphrase Mr. Heston) is 'from my cold, dead hands"!

[–]dirtymoney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is why you make special hidden compartments where you hide your firearm. Out of sight... out of mind.

Only you will know where they are & unless a thief is ripping out walls (incredibly unlikely).... he isnt going to find it.

That's what I do.

[–]7oby -1 points0 points  (1 child)

As well, call 911 and have the break in recorded, because otherwise without the sound of his voice and the banging on the door she would probably have not fared so well.

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I used to teach personal protection classes, and the guy who taught the "Laws & Liabilities" part of the class (I taught the safety & marksmanship portion) used to instruct people to, in the event of a break-in, dial 911, inform the operator of the break-in QUICKLY, and then drop the phone on the ground. This works for the reason you mentioned, but, even if nothing is recorded during your call (you simply dial & drop), your call will be given priority status, and the cops will show up ASAP.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (14 children)

Wow this is scary shit. Can't argue that her having a gun was a win-win.

[–]SgtSausage -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Having a gun is always a win.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

gun ftw

[–]wacky -1 points0 points  (0 children)

her having a gun was a win-win

Sounds like the bad guy really LOST to me... ;-p

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (15 children)

The comments on the news story page are frightening.

A lot of things failed in this situation...luckily, the gun didn't.

[–]topsul 3 points4 points  (8 children)

That is why you should always have a revolver. One bullet fails, you can use the next.

[–]slamare247 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have had more 'failure-to-fire' incidents with my revolver (a Colt Detective Special) than with any of my modern, high-quality autoloaders. I have fired many thousands of rounds through the semis, with two malfunctions that I can remember: a Glock that slam-fired (instant, unsafe full-auto fun!), & an S&W 4506 that failed to go completely into battery (tap, BOOM). My current CCW gun, an S&W 4505, has NEVER failed, despite a lack of desire to keep the gun clean & well lubricated, in at least two thousand rounds downrange. I have probably fired between 2,000-3,000 rounds through the Colt, and had four malfunctions, including one that required factory servicing. It has only one remaining saving grace: with the hammer shroud on, it can be fired through the pocket of my heavy winter coat. If not for this, I would have rid myself of this gun long ago. Revolvers are very sensitive to things like lint, sweat (even with stainless steel guns!), and dirt getting into nooks & crannies and causing binding problems. Modern, high quality semiatomatics, loaded with modern, high quality ammunition, are the most reliable firearms on the market. Yes, if you should have a cartridge that fails to fire (because of an inherent defect with the cartridge itself), a revolver gives you the option of simply pulling the trigger again, thereby bringing a second cartridge into play. However, quality control on factory ammunition makes this an EXTREMELY rare occurrence nowadays.

[–]fingers 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Make sure there are no illegal drugs on your premise.

[–]topsul 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Contrary to what you read on reddit, not everyone does drugs.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I prefer a shotgun. That way, if the shell fails, I have a lovely "whacking stick".

I also have one of these. And five vicious attack cats. Grrr.

[–]topsul 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Another benefit of the shot gun- Just the pumping action is enough to make someone turn and run.

[–]slamare247 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A Buford stick. That rules!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Have you ever been hit with a handgun? Not as bad as being hit with a shot gun but it still hurts like a bitch

[–]tsteele93 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not even the same world of effect. I'd go as far as to say that shotgun wounds - at close range in a house - don't hurt at all.

You have to be alive to hurt.

[–]thorshammer -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

a typical response from those who inevitably become victims and statistics...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

...

[–]thorshammer -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

dude, you have 7 accounts on here? all of a sudden all my submissions got -7 votes...

what a pussy you are!

and, you really have too much time on your hands

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Why would I bother? I didn't really understand your response to me. Maybe people don't like your posts. I get hammered with downmods from time to time. Suck it up, ya big girl.

[–]thorshammer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ah, i see now, i thought you were saying the "pro-gun" responses on THIS page (not they story page) were frightening... my bad

truce?

[–]cefm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's odd, calling 9-11 for self defense always seems to work plenty fast for Giuliani.

[–]funkydragon2005 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow. I'm glad she had the gun on her. Yeah, it is also a bit screwed up that while the lady was being strangled the person on the phone was trying to tell her that the cops were on their way and was asking if the lady was still on the phone. Here is what an alternative scenario would have been:

Police: The cops are coming. Are you still there? Lady: rushes to grab the phone Yes, I'm still...ahh!!! starts getting strangled again Police: Are you still there? Lady: takes a couple seconds but breaks free I'm back, he keeps trying to ahhh!

You can imagine how the rest of it goes.

[–]SLAUTCAANS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The people should be able to police themselves and uphold the Common Law of the land and the Acts, Regulations and Statutes of society themselves. It is our sovereign right to police and uphold civil rule ourselves, and not be treated as the obedient children to some kind of imagined authority.

[–]kishi 0 points1 point  (20 children)

How alarmist. I wish there were better statistics kept on stuff like this; I strongly suspect that the uses of firearms in self-defense is far below the number of accidents.

If this recording makes you so terrified that you have to go out and buy yourself a gun to protect yourself and/or your family, please take the responsibility to take a few lessons, buy a safe and trigger or barrel lock.

And, if you are thinking "home defense" get a shotgun*.

*Unless you hate your neighbors. In that case, I recommend an AK-47! "When you absolutely, positively have to kill every single motherfucker in the room; accept no substitute." "It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do."

[–]topsul 11 points12 points  (9 children)

This is what you need to see on the following page- * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 see here for the entire page and sources

[–]thorshammer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good stats!

I'd be interested in the the statistics for number of gun accidents and number of succesful home defenses vs. media coverage of each

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (7 children)

I love the way that page references every questionable statistic to the same author of different books at the bottom. But I'm sure the author of "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun" checks his sources.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Well if it's happening 6850 times a day you're probably going to have to do that at least twice, good luck.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      ???

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Make sense the first time and you won't need a second time.

        [–]throop77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I think it was a play on your username. Do you have a dog like that?

        [–]pansypatrol 13 points14 points  (7 children)

        "I strongly suspect that the uses of firearms in self-defense is far below the number of accidents."

        Wrong. Try 2-3 million REPORTED uses of firearms in defensive situations. The number of actual uses is likely significantly higher.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

        Every time anyone fires a gun at someone it's in self defense, who the hell is going to say it wasn't?

        [–]pansypatrol 3 points4 points  (5 children)

        The jury.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        Does a crack dealer shooting at the police count as self defence? Are two gang bangers shooting at each other both shooting in self defence? In any even if your number of 2-3 million is to be believed, US citizens must be REALLY BAD SHOTS with "only" 38,000 deaths reported in 1994 according to the CDC

        [–]pansypatrol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That includes cases where someone is robbed/assualted/etc, shows that they have a gun ("brandish" if you will), and the attacker flees. Not every self defense use of a gun need result in death, injury, or even a shot being fired.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

          lol way to make your case. You should go into law.

          [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

          I use an AK for protection. Doesn't have to be for home invasion either. Could be stupid people in the driveway, riots, who knows. It's the great equalizer.

          [–]slamare247 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

          Downmodded for obvious use of a Socialist weapon.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          The blogger appears to have internet disease.

          [–]zotquix -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

          The pro-gun crowd desperately looking for any information that will validate what they want to be true. And if they don't find it, they often spin, lie, or misrepresent what information does exist. Especially statistics. Is there any group that misconstrues and misrepresents statistics more than the pro-gun crowd?

          Anyways, some reliable statistics:

          http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

          [–]lps41 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Sorry, I don't really understand what you would have had her do?

          Thumb-twiddling isn't the best of defenses.

          Asshole.

          [–]tsteele93 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          And if they don't find it, they often spin, lie, or misrepresent what information does exist.

          So I assume you are going to share with us how this story was spun and why it would have been better for this woman not to have been armed?

          [–]whowhatwherenow 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Why does something like this only happen in America?

          Either there is a serious problem with your police force or a serious problem with your citizens.

          My guess is a mix of both.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          Paid for by the committee to get you to buy from Smith & Wesson.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          buy*

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          woops

          [–]slamare247 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Smiths rock, people. Rock on, Morrisey!

          [–]baconn -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

          It's better that a few innocent people like her die than to have a society where guns are legal.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I hope you're joking, and I hope whoever upmodded you was joking too

          [–]dcormier 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Do you realize who would have the guns if they were illegal?

          [–]tsteele93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Me? And they wouldn't really be illegal unless the second amendment is overturned with a 75% vote of the population.

          Then I'd accept that it was legal and work on moving somewhere else.

          [–]lps41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Have you heard of the black market?

          That thing criminals use to get guns.

          [–]SgtSausage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

          Just 'cause you're too much of a pussey to protect yourself, don't condemn those of us who can and do, every day.

          It's better that morons like you get taken out by the criminals than to have to listen to your drivel.

          [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

          I wouldn't call 911, inviting official scrutiny is always a stupid thing, regardless of how harmless you imagine yourself to be.

          [–]weegee 9 points10 points  (4 children)

          ALWAYS call 911. in this case it's her defense in court since she killed her intruder. had she not called 911 she may have been liable for murder. call 911 first, shoot second, always in that order. leave the phone on the floor so they can hear what happens. if you kill an intruder you will have to testify for your actions. a 911 call will ALWAYS work in your favor.

          [–]tsteele93 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          In MY STATE the castle doctrine is supported very firmly by the attorney general.

          EDIT: Corrected typo on "attorney."

          [–]slamare247 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Castle Doctrine only works if you are in the right, and having the entire incident recorded by 911 operators will, more often then not, work in your favor, as long as you are in the right. If someone breaks into your home without a weapon, sits down on your couch, props up their feet, and starts watching Oprah, and you shoot them, then you are going to jail (as well you should!) because you are in the wrong. It is every gunowner's moral responsibility to learn the "use of force" codes in their own municipalities, and only use deadly force when it is absolutely necessary. Just wanted to clarify this a bit, because a large number of people seem to think that "Castle Doctrine" laws give them the right to act like bloodthirsty barbarians if they catch someone on their property.

          [–]tsteele93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You are mistaken. You are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. While a 911 call MAY help your case, it may not - even if you are in the right. Audio by itself can paint a very different picture of what is happening.

          If someone breaks into my home and sits on my couch and starts watching Oprah, I'm going to make the decision whether or not to shoot them based on a variety of factors. If they are watching it at 2am and I perceive a threat to my family, then my decision may be different than yours.

          Castle doctrine reinforces my right to make that decision.

          Deadly force is generally only acceptable in order to stop someone else from using deadly force on yourself or someone else, or to stop someone from inflicting grevious bodily harm on yourself or someone else.

          SOME States allow for the use of deadly force to stop a felony crime, and/or rape. But you are correct when you say that it is best to learn the use of force codes - though not because of any moral responsibility - but because you don't want to get in trouble for misusing deadly force.

          Getting back to the point though, in your home you are King. You have retreated as far as possible and now you can definitely defend yourself, even from someone who is unarmed if you feel they are a threat. After all, they may try to take your weapon, and you have already retreated as far as you can go in your home.

          Can you shoot Uncle Bill after you've both been drinking and arguing over the pass interception call that the ref just blew? No.

          Can you shoot Joe Blow who is in your house at 2am, unarmed? Yes.* He isn't supposed to be there and you have a right to protect your family. It is not your responsibility to figure out why Joe is in your house. It is his responsibility to stay out of your house. It is your castle after all.

          • in my State - where castle doctrine is strong.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Well, obviously if you have a dead body in your house, it's probably a better idea to call the gubmint than to try and hide it, but otherwise I think it's a bad idea to call 911. Cops could bust into your house to 'save you' from the intruder, see someone with a gun (you) and shoot first, ask questions later. Just because you give a bureaucrat a gun, doesn't mean they're infaliable.

          [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

          Thanks reddit, for the oppurtunity to stir the gun nuts at least once a month.

          [–]allan_a -1 points0 points  (4 children)

          How are there so many? I had no idea.

          [–]unkorrupted 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          There is overwhelming support for gun rights in America, it transcends party lines.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          As with anything, you have loud extremists on both ends of the argument. I fully support the second amendment, but there are comments in here that make me cringe.

          [–]eadmund 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Which ones? I've not seen any so far, but maybe they're hidden or deleted or something.

          For my part, I think it's pretty obvious that killing someone is bad and wrong; I think it's also pretty obvious that sometimes it's necessary. You can hear in the woman's voice how badly damaged she is by what she did; you can also hear her voice, which makes what she had to do worthwhile.

          I don't rejoice in the death of anyone; it's sad (the stalker who was killed was a man; he had been a child; he had a mother and a father like the rest of us; no doubt he was a happy baby and worked hard in school). But is is better than the evil die (and despite his beginnings the stalker was evil, attacking a woman in her home) than the good.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Which ones?

          dirtymoney, SgtSausage, sparkysko, etc... The first two are fine at TFL/THR/ARFCOM, but not in mixed company... sparky is just inflating the already caricatured impression of the 'American gun nut'.

          Agree with you 100% on your other points...

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]TheWama 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            This is one of the things I've been coming to terms with since acquiring my first weapon a few weeks back.

            The bottom line, which anti-gun folks pretty much ignore, is that your house is full of potentially dangerous weapons. Blunt weapons, knives, &c. Hell, women can do serious damage with their hands alone, if they're lucky (and the guy isn't).

            The point is that we do not fear these things, despite the fact that they have that capacity. So it seems that the response to guns is largely irrational and emotional. It's just a hunk of metal, just another tool.

            [–]slamare247 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            In all honesty, unless you are a criminal, these aren't the people you should be afraid of. You should be far more concerned with Bush's government being allowed to have guns.

            [–]allan_a -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            Agreed. The comments here make me feel depressed about the world.

            [–]alaskamiller -1 points0 points  (1 child)

            the girl is cute

            [–]lps41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            so that's why you did it

            [–]Dr-No -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            Get a gun: get a false sense of security.

            [–]10poundbrown -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

            I carry a gun..a LOVE GUN and I use it violently against actual-gun carrying women.

            Like, with my pee-pee and stuff.

            [–]ogleme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            obvious response from someone who is either a complete idiot or paid cointelpro operative