# Skieur's Why Do Americans Have Guns Thread



## Light Artisan (Jan 25, 2011)

Canada is apparently a wonderful place with no need for home defense, or to own a gun at all.

Hash it out, hope you get all your questions answered Skieur.



skieur said:


> Illegal and unnecessary in Canada.
> 
> I will keep it super simple. I don't understand logically, why a gun is needed for home defense or protection in the woods. Is the U.S. that dangerous where you live? Are you that fit and well-trained that you could even attempt home defense? Unless you are involved in drugs and/or gangs, the need for home defense is about as necessary as the need for protection from lightening. Perhaps you should come to Canada.
> The only aggressive wild life that I have encountered has been in the jungles down south, NOT in the woods of Canada.
> ...


----------



## K8-90 (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm with Skieur. I don't get it. It seems immensely more detrimental to society than it is beneficial. I guess that's the only way in which Americans are liberal - in their gun ownership


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 25, 2011)

What I don't understand is blaming inanimate objects for crimes...


----------



## usayit (Jan 25, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> What I don't understand is blaming inanimate objects for crimes...



what he said....


----------



## The Shoe (Jan 25, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> What I don't understand is blaming inanimate objects for crimes...


 
I think it's a need to rationalize behaviour that isn't compatible with our own.  Such as, "I would never kill someone. I don't have a gun.  He has a gun.  The gun must have influenced him to kill".


----------



## Jakefreese (Jan 25, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> What I don't understand is blaming inanimate objects for crimes...




:whs:

There are criminals in Canada just like in the US and I chose to protect myself, my family and my property.  Look at Australia's crime rate when they banned guns...you know all the great world leaders have favored gun control.  Hitler, Stalin, Castro....hmmm


----------



## usayit (Jan 25, 2011)

btw....  This was a defining incedent for many of my fellow texans ..

Luby's massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guns only give the criminals the upper hand when the law biding citizens are stripped of their rights.


----------



## Marc-Etienne (Jan 25, 2011)

By no mean I want to be offensive to anyone, a hobby is a hobby. But I got to go with Skieur on that one. I feel just as safe, if not more, without a gun than with one. In the end it ends up like the big SUV thing that they are safer on the road... but when everyone drive them... ends up the same no? It is a constitutional right in US, wise man decided so and is fine with US population, well good for them. Canada think differently, if everyone were thinking the same way life would be awfully boring. Light artisan, I hope you find what suit you best and use it with wisdom. Can't say anymore than this. Canada and US are similar on many things, some are different, no reason to get bitter at each other.:hug::


----------



## Stephen.C (Jan 25, 2011)

Criminals will get guns no matter what. Gun laws or no gun laws. Why put the citizens who are NOT criminals, who will use for self defense, at a disadvantage? 
Banning guns is not the answer because legal or not, they will fall into the wrong hands.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 25, 2011)

I started this so he could get his answers without hosing up my thread, nothing more - nothing less.

All I have to say is that if some prick comes into my house with ill intentions to hurt any of my 3 kids or my wife they'll have to get through me first, and I'll be more prepared than they are. The thought of some psycho having his way in my home while I'm defenseless sends a chill down my spine like nothing else.

I may never need it, and my whole point is that I hope I never, EVER do. I hope it's the biggest waste of money I've ever spent... but, should that awful moment ever cross my path I don't want to say to myself 'if only I had...'


----------



## usayit (Jan 25, 2011)

to tell you the truth, i see less in common between the US and Canada than similar...  history, culturally, and politically.   

Gun ownership is a scapegoat for the high crime rate....   US would have a high crime rate regardless of states level of gun control.   Yes we have our problems..  but we also have a greats


----------



## MWG (Jan 25, 2011)

I would rather own a gun and never use it, than be in a situation thats beyond my control and NEED it. But I also live in a place that has a higher crime rate than most of the world. Toodles.


----------



## Miladymimi (Jan 25, 2011)

A person could kill someone with any number of items you find in your home everyday, if they chose to do so.  Do you propose that all these items be banned as well?  Must we as people be so protected from ourselves that we rely on governments to lead us around blindly for our own well being?  What will be next, knives, scissors, baseball bats?   While guns may be used for self protection, if you talk to people who own them, they primarily use them for sport or just to collect.  No different than cars or trucks.  Both of which can be used to kill someone, by the way.  If guns are not your cup of tea, then so be it. But don't be so quick to pass judgement.  Remember, it's not the gun that causes the problem, it's the person who handles it and if that person wishes to harm, having a gun or not won't make the difference.    Just my opinion.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 25, 2011)

"It's a Canadian thing."


----------



## MWG (Jan 25, 2011)

Derrel said:


> "It's a Canadian thing."



Lol. So very true.


----------



## Destin (Jan 25, 2011)

Stephen.C said:


> Criminals will get guns no matter what. Gun laws or no gun laws. Why put the citizens who are NOT criminals, who will use for self defense, at a disadvantage?
> Banning guns is not the answer because legal or not, they will fall into the wrong hands.



exactly. I don't see how anyone can want to ban guns. Criminals will always get them, no matter what. Taking them away from the general public would just leave us defenseless.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 25, 2011)

To the whole 'unnecessary' thing, I would bet that if you took an inventory of your house - most of the stuff in it is 'unnecessary'.  You still have it though.


And crime rates - look at the cities/States with the most restrictive gun laws - they usually have disproportionately higher crime rates than the rest of the country...

In my town, pretty much everyone I know has a few guns.  The only real 'crime' I read about in the local paper are kids getting busted for pot.


----------



## MWG (Jan 25, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> To the whole 'unnecessary' thing, I would bet that if you took an inventory of your house - most of the stuff in it is 'unnecessary'.  You still have it though.
> 
> 
> And crime rates - look at the cities/States with the most restrictive gun laws - they usually have disproportionately higher crime rates than the rest of the country...
> ...




Yea agreed with the second part. If your a smart criminal, your not just gonna walk into a gun store and register a piece. Your gonna get off the street, serials scratched half of the time. Meaning a lot of arrests for weapon violations.


----------



## K8-90 (Jan 25, 2011)

That's why it can't be a half-a$$ed thing done by some states and not others. It has to be done universally to work, or criminals will just pop over to the closest place and grab one.

Would you not feel safer if all countries in the world did not have WOMD? Or do you think that it is better if your country has their own to defend themselves.

Sorry, I dont think I'm making myself very clear...


----------



## K8-90 (Jan 25, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> What I don't understand is blaming inanimate objects for crimes...



No one was...

I just don't trust the majority of the population with firearms. Ad rather than picking one up myself, I'd rather firearms not be accessible in general.


----------



## Stephen.C (Jan 25, 2011)

Well you cant control the fact that the general population can buy firearms, so why put yourself at a disadvantage if ( hopefuly it wont )you were in a situation where you would need one.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 25, 2011)

What I don't see mentioned yet is the fact that this country was founded by simple people who rose up against tyranny, the largest most powerful military in the world. 

As such our founding Fathers wanted to guarantee that no American ever feel that a government could hold such power over the people, that the people could rise up and reform the government, if need be.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## FranDaMan (Jan 25, 2011)

If you are not American, and haven't been raised with the whole "right to bear arms" things, I guess you will never fully understand.

We don't have to right to bear arms in the Netherlands, and I have never felt the need for it. We don't have drive by shootings and burglars don't shoot people here (much ).

Different countries, different cultures......


----------



## MWG (Jan 26, 2011)

The way I look at it, cats already out of the bag. I will always possess my firearm because, I know there will always be people looking for shortcuts strait through my life.


----------



## Photo95 (Jan 26, 2011)

I own one mainly because I like the hobby of target shooting.
Then I became more serious about it. I go to the range twice a month, 4hrs each session. I do safety drills, learn the proper ways to clear a house and a lot of target practice.

Why not? If you like it, do it. Sure we can use this as home defense, and hope never to have to use it in my life, but if someone un-invited comes in and points a dangerous object at any of my family members... Trust me, I will be ready.


----------



## Photo95 (Jan 26, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> To the whole 'unnecessary' thing, I would bet that if you took an inventory of your house - most of the stuff in it is 'unnecessary'.  You still have it though.
> 
> 
> And crime rates - look at the cities/States with the most restrictive gun laws - they usually have disproportionately higher crime rates than the rest of the country...
> ...



Amen to that.... the more the US tries to restrict firearms from the public, the more gang members take advantage of that knowing that most will not be armed.

Just like you said. If everyone was armed, people will think twice before pointing a piece at someone else....


----------



## Photo95 (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> to tell you the truth, i see less in common between the US and Canada than similar...  history, culturally, and politically.
> 
> Gun ownership is a scapegoat for the high crime rate....   US would have a high crime rate regardless of states level of gun control.   Yes we have our problems..  but we also have a greats



States with more strict gun laws have highest crimes.
States with no strict gun laws have little to almost no crimes.

if you need proof, ill gladly forward you some links.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Photo95 said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > to tell you the truth, i see less in common between the US and Canada than similar...  history, culturally, and politically.
> ...




Um... read again....  I've been on your side..   don't need proof.

Although I wouldn't say no strict gun laws have little to no crime. ...  My point is that there is no established correlation and gun control advocates are simply using gun ownership as a simple scapegoat for a more complex problem.   If anything, the focus on controlling guns from law biding citizens has distracted from the real question:  Why is <insert area here> crime rate high?  

If I were still living in my home state of Tx, I'd would have a concealed weapon license.  I had planned on it after graduation from college (no guns on government and academic property) but alas... life took me down a different path.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jan 26, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> I started this so he could get his answers without hosing up my thread, nothing more - nothing less.
> 
> All I have to say is that if some prick comes into my house with ill intentions to hurt any of my 3 kids or my wife they'll have to get through me first, and I'll be more prepared than they are. The thought of some psycho having his way in my home while I'm defenseless sends a chill down my spine like nothing else.
> 
> I may never need it, and my whole point is that I hope I never, EVER do. I hope it's the biggest waste of money I've ever spent... but, should that awful moment ever cross my path I don't want to say to myself 'if only I had...'



I agree completely! Those who feel a bit shaky about gun owners tend to remember the irresponsible idiots who should have never been holding a gun in the first place. Self defense is key.. You may never _need _to use it, but what happens if you would? I'd rather not live with that regret.


----------



## Warren Peace (Jan 26, 2011)

Guns are made to kill.  That is the american way.    
 Peace sells, but whos buying.


----------



## skieur (Jan 26, 2011)

Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area.   The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000  with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east

In both Canada and the U.S, the majority of murders have been related to domestic in-family disputes, which the police have usually been able to solve. The second largest group of murders have been drug or gang related.  Violent home invasions have been targetted with drugs and/or gang involvement.  The victim to use the clichee is often "known to the police".  

Despite perceptions, by the way, the crime rate has gone down steadily in both Canada and the US.   You have a much higher chance of being hit by ligtening or a car or having a member of your family critically injured in a car accident, than you do of being a victim of random violent crime. 

So home protection is an excuse that cannot be justified for carrying a gun.  Moreover, the era of the cowboy has long passed.  Today, particularly in the US, you can get charged for shooting the bad guy and sued for several million if you critically injured him.  On the other hand the bad guy can claim self-defence for killing you, because you brandished a gun at him or were threatening to shoot him.  Then of course if you shot someone who turned out not to be carrying a gun, you could be charged with murder.

Too many NO WIN situations can result from carrying a gun for "protection". 

skieur


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't think guns have direct influence on crimes. If someone has the will to commit a crime, he will with or without a gun.

Secondly, I always feel better to understand then to not understand. Being accessible to guns allow me to understand them better whether I use it or not. I can go to a gun range and shoot a few rounds, or walk around in a gun store to admire the mechanics. Back home where guns are prohibited, it's such a mysterious thing. People always think negatively of guns because of how guns are portrayed on the media and simply because they have never handled one on person before.


----------



## K8-90 (Jan 26, 2011)

It must be terrible living in a place where you are constantly afraid of someone entering your house and attacking you family...

Do you seriously think that everyone is out to get you?


----------



## K8-90 (Jan 26, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> ...People always think negatively of guns because of how guns are portrayed on the media...



:lmao:


----------



## SJGordon (Jan 26, 2011)

Warren Peace said:


> Guns are made to kill.  That is the american way.
> Peace sells, but whos buying.



Yep, mine have killed thousand of paper targets and a few bottles over the past 20+ years of owning them. 

Typical strawman argument


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation which is going to always be partly based on personal viewpoints; media presentation; costs and of course legalities.

In short if people grow up in an environment where "everyone owns a sword" and the media portray such a display as well; added to the fact that the costs of a sword are not too great and the fact that the government restrictions are not too harsh - then the population will in general arm itself to a level with the sword. 
This is little more than our basic human mentality to have the same "power" or more "power" than others around us and a weapon like a sword is a quick way to convey power to a person quickly. 


Guns are much the same thing - only they offer far more empowerment for far less cost to the person (you have to practice with a sword to be any good - shotguns you just point and fire ). So when you have a society like the USA it makes sense that a large proportion will arm themselves despite not having any major actual reason to do so. 

Canada however has stricter gun laws (as far as I am aware) and the media and social aspects in Canada make less an issue of having to own a gun - so the culture of the population as a whole differs and thus you have a reduced number of guns in circulation.

Come to the UK and you've pretty much got even stricter gun laws and you're down to mostly farmers; the upper class; those wanting to be upper class and gun/rifle clubs. The social structure; the social pressure I should say, just isn't there outside of those groups to own a gun and the legal preventions for the average person make it a significant trial to obtain ownership - so you have to put more effort and thought into acquisition - not to mention costs and availability. 



As for if guns make you more or less protected who's to say - if you can own a gun the criminal can generally own one too so you've not really increased your security; you just lined up with the opponent. I don't know if that means you should or should not own a gun - just that it means an "armed population" is not necessarily any safer than an unarmed one.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 26, 2011)

Wolverines!!!


----------



## digital flower (Jan 26, 2011)

Don't try and invade the US. You will be shot to pieces. :mrgreen:


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area.   The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000  with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east



Crime in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just more data.... although its wiki.  What is interesting is the article actually states that the gap is closing as the rate in the US is falling a bit faster.



> In both Canada and the U.S, the majority of murders have been related to domestic in-family disputes, which the police have usually been able to solve. The second largest group of murders have been drug or gang related.  Violent home invasions have been targetted with drugs and/or gang involvement.  The victim to use the clichee is often "known to the police".



Goes back to what I was saying.   Guns are not the cause but a symptom.   Why is domestic abuse the majority?   Why is drug and gang next?   Its interesting that the #1 and #2 spot is the same for both countries assuming different levels of gun control.  Also consider that the US states bordering Mexico have additional "issues" to contend with.



> So home protection is an excuse that cannot be justified for carrying a gun.  Moreover, the era of the cowboy has long passed.  Today, particularly in the US, you can get charged for shooting the bad guy and sued for several million if you critically injured him.  On the other hand the bad guy can claim self-defence for killing you, because you brandished a gun at him or were threatening to shoot him.  Then of course if you shot someone who turned out not to be carrying a gun, you could be charged with murder.



I beg to differ.   There are dozens and dozens of reports of people (often young teens home alone after school) successfully defending themselves from an intruder.   I could only imagine how bad the end result would be if they were left unable to protect themselves.  The time between school end and parent's return home is often the most critical time for an intruder to strike.  

How about the Luby's incident?  which was the direct reason for the TX concealed weapon law.  32 people dead and 20 injured simply because no one had the means to return fire.

Key point:

" The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person in an establishment that served alcohol."



> Too many NO WIN situations can result from carrying a gun for "protection".
> 
> skieur



We see it the other way.  It is a no win situation for citizens if an armed intruder can look down a block of houses "knowing" with certainty that no one in those homes can defend themselves adequately.

Gun control only works on those that abide by the law.... not the ones who intend to break it.  I'm also in the mindset that each and every "region" (state in the US) needs the right to set regulations appropriate for their constituents.   Each area is different with different needs, and different opinions and cultures.

In Texas, it is not uncommon for children to be taught at a very very early age how to handle and respect a firearm.   This attitude is carried throughout life as well as population.   Another reason why gun control to protect citizens from themselves is unnecessary in TX.  I bet that some 13 year olds are a better responsible gun owner than many adults here in the North East.  


When Derrel said "Its a Canadian Thing"  and when I stated that we have a share of problems in the US... the important thing to remember is that you can't blanket a stance on this issue without total understanding.   


Someone also mentioned that the people should always have the means to overthrow a government that no longer serves the people.  A distinct distrust for big government ingrained in our culture not shared by everyone (including Canadians up north).


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

btw...  crime is ramping up in my home town....   Sad...  much of it coincides with Katrina as Houston took in many "refugees" but did not have the means to help them start a new "productive" and "law biding" life.   Desperation does bad things.

Teenager Fatally Shoots Intruder - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

Deputy Constable's Son, 15, Shoots Intruder - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

From one of the stories:

"Neighbors said home invasions have become too frequent on their street. Jenny Evans supported the teen's actions.
"I can't blame him," she said. "I'd shoot him if he was in my house."



These stories are quite common and I hear it via my family who lives in a nice quiet neighborhood.  My brother and his girlfriend was car jacked recently right in front of our home.  This shocked everyone in the area.


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation



A race in which I am easily winning in my neighborhood. :thumbup:

Cars and drowning kill WAY more people than guns ever did. Why not outlaw cars and swimming and a hundred other things that are higher on the kill list than guns? 

And then we'll outlaw spoons for making people fat. Yeah, that's it!

Finally, look up some stats on mass (gun) murders in the UK vs in the US. The list is much longer and more distinguished in the UK. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## FranDaMan (Jan 26, 2011)

It's a discussion without an end.
Stats are thrown around, together with strawmen arguments.

Why not have the Americans keep their guns and the Canadians live without them ?
Everyone happy !


----------



## Destin (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> In part I see it as an arms race kind of situation which is going to always be partly based on personal viewpoints; media presentation; costs and of course legalities.
> 
> In short if people grow up in an environment where "everyone owns a sword" and the media portray such a display as well; added to the fact that the costs of a sword are not too great and the fact that the government restrictions are not too harsh - then the population will in general arm itself to a level with the sword.
> This is little more than our basic human mentality to have the same "power" or more "power" than others around us and a weapon like a sword is a quick way to convey power to a person quickly.
> ...



Your missing the biggest point. Whether or not the population is armed in general, the criminals ALWAYS will be. If you wanna get a gun in the UK but don't wanna go through the legal hoops I guarantee you can get one on the street quickly, easily, and dirt cheap. Your right, speaking of the general population, but your not taking into account how criminals actually get guns. If they walk into a gun store and buy/register it, then they are about the stupidest criminal in the world. 

Would I own a gun if I lived in the suburbs? Probably not. But as it stands, I live in a rural area, and happen to enjoy target shooting. Occasionally I have to shoot a woodchuck to stop them from tearing out lawn to shreds too. And in a few years I plan to start deer hunting. So around here there is a perfectly good need for a gun. And since I have them, I keep them wear they are quickly accessible in my house, should I ever need to defend myself. Will I ever use it for that? I doubt it. Does it make me sleep better at night? You bet.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Oh btw....

I have never heard of a story in TX of anyone being held legally liable if a person has been shot in self defense.   I'm sure it has happened but the right to carry a concealed weapon is not to be confused with being a freelance police officer.   Most people with such a license (its has requirements that must be met) understand this.

Its stories out of TV...


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

Destin said:


> Your missing the biggest point. Whether or not the population is armed in general, the criminals ALWAYS will be. If you wanna get a gun in the UK but don't wanna go through the legal hoops I guarantee you can get one on the street quickly, easily, and dirt cheap. Your right, speaking of the general population, but your not taking into account how criminals actually get guns. If they walk into a gun store and buy/register it, then they are about the stupidest criminal in the world.




True criminals can get guns, but because the UK has a strict market control and a very limited market its a lot lot harder, even for the criminals to get hold of guns (fewer dodgy dealers; fewer missing shipments etc..). Furthermore the reduced gun culture aspect means that whilst they might get a handgun its going to be even harder to get hold of anything like an automatic or amour penetrating rounds.

In short we don't have anywhere near the same gun culture and gun problem in our criminal groups as the US does - we DO have it, but its reduced. Our street gangs are far more likely to stick a knife in you than shoot you.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

FranDaMan said:


> Why not have the Americans keep their guns and the Canadians live without them ?
> Everyone happy !



Bingo!  the whole group of people who are against gun ownership like to think in generalizations and fail to realize the needs of different areas.


----------



## ghache (Jan 26, 2011)

In Canada, we are Ninjas, we dont need guns.

Seriously, i never felt the need to protect myself when i go at the grocerie stores.

I might be wrong but the need to protect youself againsts guns is probably related to the fact that everyone carries a gun?


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> In short we don't have anywhere near the same gun culture and gun problem in our criminal groups as the US does - we DO have it, but its reduced. Our street gangs are far more likely to stick a knife in you than shoot you.



Maybe would be in the same boat we'll get there if we could somehow secure our borders.......

I'd love to see my country get to the point that knifes are more of an issue than guns.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

ghache said:


> In Canada, we are Ninjas, we dont need guns.



And Americans (US).. we are RAMBO!!!!  lol


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > In Canada, we are Ninjas, we dont need guns.
> ...


----------



## ghache (Jan 26, 2011)

A rumor is going around that Sylvester Stallone fled to Canada during the Vietnam War in order to avoid the draft. Rambo is ghhhhhayyy


----------



## Phranquey (Jan 26, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> People always think negatively of guns because of how guns are portrayed on the media


 
I find it hilarious that the liberal media has been screaming for gun control, yet they're the only ones talking.... no one will touch it with a ten-foot pole. Media & Brady are fuming that Obama didn't mention one single word about it last night in the SOTU.  The only thing that is coming out is Senator McCarthy's bill to ban Happy Sticks, and that probably won't even get voted on in the House.


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

It would take a very stable America in strong financial times and a very popular leader to even attempt to approach the Gun laws in any meaningful way. It's just too engrained in peoples minds and too open to opposition simply shouting "unconstitutional" without needing to make any argument to get support.


----------



## mishele (Jan 26, 2011)

I want to start this off w/.........I HAVE NO ISSUE W/ PEOPLE OWNING GUNS......lol
But I have always wondered why people need these crazy automatic ones. Is anyone using them for self defense? Or is it more of a hobby gun? :hug::
Is it just a "because it's my right" thing? I don't see any reason to be able to shoot 30 shots under a minute.


----------



## ghache (Jan 26, 2011)

Here is my cousin's neighboor from Bayview, San francisco.
She was telling us to put down our music or she was going to put down the music herself.







Sorry for the bad shadows on her face and her right tits but sunlight was kinda harsh and i didnt had time to setup a flash.


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

mishele said:


> I want to start this off w/.........I HAVE NO ISSUE W/ PEOPLE OWNING GUNS......lol
> But I have always wondered why people need these crazy automatic ones. Is anyone using them for self defense? Or is it more of a hobby gun? :hug::
> Is it just a "because it's my right" thing? I don't see any reason to be able to shoot 30 shots under a minute.



I'd say that is then getting to the level of being no different to any other hobby - fast car with a fat exhaust and revvy sounds; bit white lenses; loud motobikes; 

I guess for women its really like slick, streamlined irons; chrome plated cooking pots; titanium cooking utensils


----------



## ghache (Jan 26, 2011)

mishele said:


> I want to start this off w/.........I HAVE NO ISSUE W/ PEOPLE OWNING GUNS......lol
> But I have always wondered why people need these crazy automatic ones. Is anyone using them for self defense? Or is it more of a hobby gun? :hug::
> Is it just a "because it's my right" thing? *I don't see any reason to be able to shoot 30 shots under a minute*.


 
Becauuuuuuuuse Jamal and rasheed run 30 time faster with a TV.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> In short we don't have anywhere near the same gun culture and gun problem in our criminal groups as the US does - we DO have it, but its reduced. Our street gangs are far more likely to stick a knife in you than shoot you.



HOld that thought...read the chart wrong.


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > In short we don't have anywhere near the same gun culture and gun problem in our criminal groups as the US does - we DO have it, but its reduced. Our street gangs are far more likely to stick a knife in you than shoot you.
> ...



Yes I can - using the same source too 
Murders Per Capita:

United States:	0.042802 per 1,000 people 
United Kingdom:	0.0140633 per 1,000 people 

:mrgreen:


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> MichiganFarts said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



LOL, dang it, you got it before I could change my post...I did read it wrong.


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

Hehe though I can see where you read it wrong - for those looking the first number (24, 46) is its ranking in their list not the number of deaths  (I just removed it from my post to clarify that its the numbers after the name that are the stats)


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> Hehe though I can see where you read it wrong - for those looking the first number (24, 46) is its ranking in their list not the number of deaths  (I just removed it from my post to clarify that its the numbers after the name that are the stats)



That's the problem you run into with lazy research ...


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't put much stock in statistics ... you can make them say whatever you want them to.

I remember a while ago, the papers were saying that Dallas had the highest crime rate in the nation (I don't believe that...) according to some new study.

Well, they came to find out that many crimes were being counted in multiple categories...


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2011)

There are lies, damn lies and statistics


----------



## j-dogg (Jan 26, 2011)

I feel a lot better when I'm off in the wilderness shooting with a piece in my holster. The only gun control that applies when you're 100 miles from civilization is being able to hit your target.


----------



## mishele (Jan 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > I want to start this off w/.........I HAVE NO ISSUE W/ PEOPLE OWNING GUNS......lol
> ...




LOL sorry I'll take the fast car over the iron or pot....

Really though it's just the Corvette of guns...lol People just need to say they have it and show it off? Where do you go to even shoot an automatic weapon? A gun range? lol And what are you shooting at for practice? lol


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Dallas, Houston, UK, US... pfft....   

Camden, NJ was #1 for violent crime in the US for 2005, 2004, and 2009...   fya!  

2010 well.. they slipped a little.  A measly #2 spot.   But in 2009 they were at 1880 per 100,000 for violent crime.    oh yeh.. they just laid off practically half of their police force too.   If I were a Camden cop, I don't know if I would be lucky to keep my job or to loose it.


http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2010/City_crime_rate_2010-2011_hightolow.pdf


----------



## skieur (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> btw... crime is ramping up in my home town.... Sad... much of it coincides with Katrina as Houston took in many "refugees" but did not have the means to help them start a new "productive" and "law biding" life. Desperation does bad things.
> 
> Teenager Fatally Shoots Intruder - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston
> 
> ...


 
I think that you need to differentiate between break-ins and house invasions.  A kid with a BB gun or 2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.

In many states and provinces, a prosecutor and the police would consider that deadly force was not warranted and even firing a gun could lead to unexpected tragedy, if it hit some innocent in the area.  Charges would be laid.  

Keep in mind, that thieves have even successfully sued a homeowner for being injured due to accident while illegally in a home in California.

Whether you consider the law appropriate or idiotic, any use of a gun for "self-protection" can result in a considerable number of unexpected NEGATIVE legal consequences.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 26, 2011)

j-dogg said:


> I feel a lot better when I'm off in the wilderness shooting with a piece in my holster. The only gun control that applies when you're 100 miles from civilization is being able to hit your target.


 
Unfortunately, when you have several guys out there with the same attitude who have been drinking all morning and shooting at anything that moves, then you personally have the potential for SERIOUS TROUBLE.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> Whether you consider the law appropriate or idiotic, any use of a gun for "self-protection" can result in a considerable number of unexpected NEGATIVE legal consequences.
> 
> skieur


All I really have to say to that is - legal bills or possible jail time is better than being dead.

I agree that usually, deadly force would probably not be warranted, but in the rare situations when it is - I want that option.

If it's me or them, I'll do everything I can to make sure it's them.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 26, 2011)

LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...

I think that is something that a lot of people don't really understand.  Do you want to know why?  Why the founders of this nation thought it important to guarantee that right to us?

Here's why...

If our government ever evolves into something that we, the people, do not wish - it is our duty as citizens of the United States to overthrow said government and establish a new one.  Without an armed population, I don't know if that would be possible.

Hopefully, that never happens.  Hopefully, there will be a peaceful way to 'fix things'.  That is not always the case though.  Like the NRA likes to say - it ain't about duck hunting.


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> 2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.



How, _exactly_, do you have any ef'n clue what 2 "apparently" un-armed guys "have in mind" when they break into your home? 

Really?  

Thanks for the laugh. :thumbup:


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> Unfortunately, when you have several guys out there *breaking into your house* then you personally have the potential for SERIOUS TROUBLE.
> 
> skieur



Fissed for accuracy...


----------



## j-dogg (Jan 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> j-dogg said:
> 
> 
> > I feel a lot better when I'm off in the wilderness shooting with a piece in my holster. The only gun control that applies when you're 100 miles from civilization is being able to hit your target.
> ...



wow @ this.

64,999,995 people with firearms didn't kill anyone today. gun ownership has everything to do with self-defense. would you rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it? 

many times armed citizens have saved others lives in bank robberies and things of the sort. we had an instance here were a clerk was being shot at behind a counter and a guy filling up his car in the station came in and shot the gunman dead. In Florida we have a thing called the "castle doctrine" basically states if you break into my house and I feel my life is threatened I can blast away and claim self-defense. I have a .22 and a shotgun. Most of my neighbors are armed. I have never seen a break-in happen in my neighborhood in the 5 years I've lived here. An armed society is a polite society.

I guess gun ownership is like soccer. The people on the other side of the pond don't get it.


----------



## Destin (Jan 26, 2011)

Rekd said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > 2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.
> ...



Exactly. Someone breaks into my house while I'm there, and they will have a gun in their face quicker than they can blink. I won't pull the trigger unless they give me a reason to, but I will pull it if need be. The cops can throw me in jail and press charges all they want, I'm going to protect my family no matter what the consequences are.


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Rekd said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > 2 apparently un-armed guys did not seem to be planning any violence toward anyone in the house and may not have even known that anyone was there.
> ...



yeh... the response is a joke.

seriously judge.... I threatened their life but I wasnt serious....   



I guess the 23 dead at Lubys also didjt think the gunman way serious either.


I guess I could also keep posting more links to similar incidents but each will be doubted through hindsight eyes


useless discussion with useless logic and baseless statements...  cheers got better things to do...


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



:thumbup:

I WILL BE THE JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER IN MY HOUSE WHEN MY FAMILY'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. PERIOD.

If you're not invited in, you risk being shot. Deal with it.

Thank you. :mrgreen:


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

lol...

Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> lol...
> 
> Does banning cameras reduce terrorism or child porn?



No, but banning Happy Meals reduces fat kids...


----------



## usayit (Jan 26, 2011)

Rekd said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > lol...
> ...



And regulating stupidity and legislation of common sense makes everyone smarter.. lol

In the news today.....
NYC lawmaker announced his push to ban texting and walking... wtf?


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

usayit said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



I saw that. I nearly fell over. :er:


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 26, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...
> 
> I think that is something that a lot of people don't really understand.  Do you want to know why?  Why the founders of this nation thought it important to guarantee that right to us?
> 
> ...




lol, I said that 47 posts ago....


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...
> ...



Honestly, it prolly needs sayin' every few posts.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 26, 2011)

Yeah, true. :thumbup:


----------



## Rekd (Jan 26, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> What I don't see mentioned yet is the fact that this country was founded by simple people who rose up against tyranny, the largest most powerful military in the world.
> 
> As such our founding Fathers wanted to guarantee that no American ever feel that a government could hold such power over the people, that the people could rise up and reform the government, if need be.



Quoted for posterity. :thumbup:


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 26, 2011)

Something else I have noted in many conversations of this type is that unless you get an anti-gun person to join you at the range their opinion will not change....take one to the range and they immediately change their opinion.


green eggs and ham. Think about it.


----------



## j-dogg (Jan 27, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> Something else I have noted in many conversations of this type is that unless you get an anti-gun person to join you at the range their opinion will not change....take one to the range and they immediately change their opinion.
> 
> 
> green eggs and ham. Think about it.



I was this guy. Not fanatical about guns but was pretty much like "to each their own" went to the range with my friend he's a cop and I've been hooked since.


----------



## chito beach (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> Well, the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 with more in the south, west and east and less in the centre/north area.
> 
> The murder rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000  with more in the far north and west part of the country and less in the east
> 
> ...



Your statistics are way off!  33% of murders happen within the household.

The Daily, Tuesday, October 26, 2010. Homicide in Canada

_*14% were killed by a spouse, 19% by another family member, 39% by an  acquaintance, 9% by someone known to them through a criminal  relationship and 18% by a stranger.*_



Canadian statistics are totally bogus this is an excerpt from 

Statistics Canada
Statistics Canada: Canada's national statistical agency / Statistique Canada : Organisme statistique national du Canada


*Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR)*



_*Please give reference for your statistics given here. Any statistics given out by The UCR Survey classifies incidents according to the most serious  offence (MSO) occurring in the incident (generally the offence which  carries the longest maximum sentence under the Criminal Code of Canada).  In categorizing incidents, violent offences always take precedence over  non-violent offences. For example, an incident involving both a  breaking and entering offence and an assault is counted as an incident  of assault.

As a result of the MSO scoring rule, less serious  offences are under-counted by the aggregate survey. However, the  incident-based survey allows up to four violations per incident,  permitting the identification of lesser offences.
*_ 
 Government is lying to you about all the crime statistics in Canada.  We really dont have a clue what the real crime rates are.

The survey also does not include  many aboriginal peoples in canada as they are not required to report.

The MSO requires that only the primary offense be listed but has space for up to 4 crimes per incident (which are not counted)  So if you have a murderer, who raped and sodomized the victims before stealing all their property, by the MSO rule only the murder need be counted. and if multiple murders happen in the same incident it can be counted as one incident. 

 That is why your crime rate has dropped.


----------



## Rekd (Jan 27, 2011)

^^^ That's gonna leave a mark.


----------



## skieur (Jan 27, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...
> .


 
Sorry, but that was NOT my title and NOT my quote either.  I was interested in WHY americans feel that they NEED to carry guns.

skieur


----------



## kundalini (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> I was interested in WHY americans feel that they NEED to carry guns.


 That is a generalization.  You may wish to be more specific as to why a certain population feel the need.


----------



## Crabazon (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I was interested in WHY americans feel that they NEED to carry guns.
> ...


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

Lol the answer is simple.

Its called the *Superiority complex*, a well known mental illness. 
The need to feel superior to others has been going on for centurys within the US mens

For the one with does not know what is this illess is all about. 

The superiority complex is one of the ways which a person with an inferiority [feeling] complex may use as a method of escape from his difficulties. He assumes that he is superior when he is not, and this false success compensates him for the state of inferiority which he cannot bear. The normal person does not have a superiority complex, he does not even have a sense of superiority. He has the striving to be superior in the sense that we all have ambition to be successful; but so long as this striving is expressed in work it does not lead to false valuations, which are at the root of mental disease.

IMO, carrying a gun to do your groceries, park and other public places, in your car and your camera bag is totally one way to feel superior to the other dude right beside you. you can say whatever you want, its what it is. You can keep the protection bull****s to yourselves.


----------



## Destin (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> Lol the answer is simple.
> 
> Its called the *Superiority complex*, a well known mental illness.
> The need to feel superior to others has been going on for centurys within the US mens
> ...



Yes. But I can see the carrying it in your camera bag. I, like most people on here, have a few thousand dollars of gear in my camera bag. My odds of getting mugged while carrying that around are MUCH higher than without it. Call it what you want, I value my camera gear, and my life. 

I don't even carry one on me in public. There is a .22 rifle in my car sometimes but thats it. They usually stay at home.


----------



## chito beach (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > LOL - The search tag showing up for this thread right now is "why are americans have the right to have guns"...
> ...



Why are you avoiding the real facts in Canada that I posted?


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> Lol the answer is simple.
> 
> Its called the *Superiority complex*, a well known mental illness.
> The need to feel superior to others has been going on for centurys within the US mens
> ...



You people and your Googlikipedia.  You sounds like an experts! 

 Maybe you can diagnose me without using a search function...like why do I know I'm superior to you, when I've never even owned a gun?


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > Lol the answer is simple.
> ...


 

I am not an expert! I am a wikiexpert! 

:lmao:


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> I am not an expert! I am a wikiexpert!
> 
> :lmao:



I see your five minutes of research, and raise you...

A five second Google search!

Why do people like to use wikipedia and post info in forums like an expert? - Google Search

Notice the very first find...lol


----------



## skieur (Jan 27, 2011)

kundalini said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I was interested in WHY americans feel that they NEED to carry guns.
> ...


 
OK, let me rephrase that. I was interested in why a lot of americans seem to feel the need to carry guns and whether they considered the consequences of using a gun.

The main issue back at the start was home protection. As a Canadian who has spent time in tents, trailers, isolated cottages, cabins, in bear country by the way, and homes, as well a cross country skiing, way off the beaten track, I never considered a gun as necessary and certainly not carrying one around in a holster.

Moreover as I mentioned, considering the legal consequences of using a gun to protect your home against intruders, it had the potential for increasing the gun owner's legal hassles, exponentially. Of course, one always hears the clichee "better to spend time in jail than be dead" Personally, considering the choice of sharing a 6 foot by 8 foot cell with a druggie with fried brains or an aggressive psycho, and coping with the guards, I would prefer death.

So, I don't see any logic in the "home protection" argument and when I read posts about bigger guns or having an AR at home, I become even more mystified. What is the point? Getting into a shoot-out in your home?

As to carrying a gun when you are out doing photography, again as protection against what. Where I have been coyotes keep their distance, bears ignore you, if you don't seem threatening to them, etc. The greatest danger is probably hunters that have had too much to drink. You can't shoot them, but you may have to be very careful that they don't shoot you.
You can of course shoot your gun in the woods, but then handguns do not have the same accuracy as rifles.

By the way, have any of the posters here, ever needed to pull out their gun for protection? 

skieur


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > I am not an expert! I am a wikiexpert!
> ...


 
To bad i lost 4 years of my life doing a BA in psychology at Ottawa U

However, I can probably find a really nice wiki deffinition on Paranoia wich could also be used to diagnose half of the photographers on here who carries gun in thier camera bags.


----------



## j-dogg (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> Lol the answer is simple.
> 
> Its called the *Superiority complex*, a well known mental illness.
> The need to feel superior to others has been going on for centurys within the US mens
> ...


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


 
Probably none. They shoot targets.


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

j-dogg said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > Lol the answer is simple.
> ...


 
:lmao:


----------



## kundalini (Jan 27, 2011)

skieur said:


> OK, let me rephrase that.


 Cheers for that because I didn't want to come out with my "Canadians wear funny hats" comment.  

Back on topic.  I grew up and after many years, have moved back on the family farm.  I used to hunt game, but would only hunt what I would eat.  I have no problem with that kind of "sportsman".  I dispise trophy hunters.  I don't see the need for Joe Citizen to posses a hand gun.  Handguns and Automatic weapons frighten me for various reasons, however,  I will fight for the right for Joe Citizen to own a hand gun.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> To bad i lost 4 years of my life doing a BA in psychology at Ottawa U
> 
> However, I can probably find a really nice wiki deffinition on Paranoia wich could also be used to diagnose half of the photographers on here who carries gun in thier camera bags.



Ah, I forgot some people actually study to do the psychobabble stuff...:lmao:

I was spanked as a child, so you know I'm messed up in da head, and can't get this stuff straight.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

My wife preaches this "three swats" crap, like anything more is child abuse too, so maybe we can draw from that, and say "only three bullets at a time".

Then everyone's happy, and you gotta choose more carefully who you're gonna shoot.


----------



## Destin (Jan 27, 2011)

Alright. I really didn't wanna resort to the truth. But here it is. This is why all Americans feel the NEED to carry guns. Because we don't wanna be a Canadian idiot.


----------



## usayit (Jan 27, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Handguns and Automatic weapons frighten me for various reasons, however,  I will fight for the right for Joe Citizen to own a hand gun.



High five...

People try to generalize their own opinions and own feelings across a group of people.   In other words, they are incapable of even for one second placing themselves in the shoes of another.  This is true with many hot topics; Gay Marriage (people "feel" that it shouldn't be), Woman's rights (people felt that women were somehow less capable then man), Guns (scary, intimidation,etc), Cameras ("feel" their privacy are violated), Texting while walking (some idiot NYC lawmaker thinking he should legislate what he defines as common sense). etc.

These topics go on forever because when it comes down to it, one side is incapable.... identifying "feeling" and logic/reason. 


When someone (anyone) voices their "feelings" yet logically state that their "feelings" shouldn't be forced upon the entire population, it renews some sort of hope that there is a group out there that uses their head.


----------



## usayit (Jan 27, 2011)

Definition of PARANOIA

1
: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2
: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

From webster...

I fail to see how simply carrying a weapon or owning one classifies anyone of paranoia. I'm scared of heights... I guess that is some sort of paranoia.   We all have "mental" problems.  Often the only difference between being "normal" and "medically mentally ill" is whether or not the condition interferes with leading a normal productive life.

I also have this compelling need to check the front door twice before leaving home...  Its fine.   If I keep returning over and over to check the door to the point that I am always late to work, then I think I would be mental.  (Our house was robbed when I was young.. guess that might have something to do with it)

For every mass killing we see on TV, makes me wonder how things would have been different if someone anyone was able to fire back. 

Those folks that tackled the gunman in Arizona.... BRAVE... very BRAVE!!!


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

can i ask the same question skieur asked?

have any of the posters here, ever needed to pull out their gun for protection?


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> can i ask the same question skieur asked?
> 
> have any of the posters here, ever needed to pull out their gun for protection?



I still haven't needed to use my car insurance, but everyone says it's a good idea to keep it.

Do you propose they wait until they know they'll need it? LOL?  stupendous!


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > can i ask the same question skieur asked?
> ...


 
:thumbup:


----------



## Destin (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> can i ask the same question skieur asked?
> 
> have any of the posters here, ever needed to pull out their gun for protection?



Against a person? Nope.

Against an animal, yes. Twice actually.

 There was a Rabid Raccoon in my yard last summer that I had to kill (my little brother was 30 feet away in a sandbox). 

And we had a fox in our yard once that was fighting with our dog. It also got shot. 

I don't own a single handgun though. Just a few .22 caliber rifles, and a 12 gauge shotgun.


----------



## usayit (Jan 27, 2011)

ghache said:


> can i ask the same question skieur asked?
> 
> have any of the posters here, ever needed to pull out their gun for protection?



<first thought>
I guess this is the same line of questioning when healthy individuals argue that they don't need Health Care insurance...

<second thought>
TPF is not a good representation of a state, county, region, or anywhere for that matter.  As such, I fail to see the point of the question.


With that said... not in NJ.  Fortunately, not in TX either.   TX Concealed weapon law didn't go into effect until after 1991.  By then I was already headed to college.   Right after college, when I would have registered, I ended up here in NJ.  I haven't had a chance to check on laws here so my M16 (non-automatic) and Colt 45 were left with my father in Texas.  It hasn't been a high priority on my list of things... with a young kid in a small house even less so.


----------



## ghache (Jan 27, 2011)

Destin said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > can i ask the same question skieur asked?
> ...


 

I have hunting rifles myself. A 410, a 30-06 and a 22-250.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 27, 2011)

I've never had to actually pull a gun on another human being but was in a "life threatening" situation, hand on the weapon....but never drawn and gratefully so.


----------



## Warren Peace (Jan 27, 2011)

So if a person enters your house and you are forced to shoot them.  Do you try to kill them, or do you try to just slow them down with a bullet or two.  Probably to the head.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 27, 2011)

Warren Peace said:


> So if a person enters your house and you are forced to shoot them.  Do you try to kill them, or do you try to just slow them down with a bullet or two.  Probably to the head.



What would you do if you felt your life was threatened by an intruder in your house, and you didn't have a gun?  

Ignorant question because you don't really know the answer until it happens, and we all hope it doesn't end up happening.


----------



## chito beach (Jan 27, 2011)

Warren Peace said:


> So if a person enters your house and you are forced to shoot them.  Do you try to kill them, or do you try to just slow them down with a bullet or two.  Probably to the head.



2 rounds to center of body mass, only morons would try for a head shot.  You aim for the largest portion of the body


----------



## Arch (Jan 27, 2011)

Political discussion, im surprised the thread has lasted this long. No more of these in future please, keep your beliefs of gun use to yourselves.


----------

