So, there should be classes on where to shoot someone so you can make sure they will die? Defending yourself with a pistol went out with the dime novels of the Old West (there were actually very few classic gunfighter "duels"). Calling 911 is more effective. That said, most of the homicides I've ever seen one person shot the other before the victim could respond in any fashion.
How many homicides have you actually seen? I am gonna call you out on that statement. Defending yourself being out of a western movie? Right, so banks and convenience stores never get held up. No, people don't get mugged anymore, that's just a myth propagated by the pro-gun crowd. Guns take away physical advantage. The only people that gun control helps are rapists and people who are violent enough already to commit aggravated crimes. The average police response time is probably 10-15 minutes. What's quicker, calling 911 while someone robs your house, or getting the gun out of your fire safe and kicking his ass out? Classes where you learn how to shoot people so they die? No, you're being stupid here. Anyone can shoot a person so they die. Shoot them and when they fall down walk over and shoot them in the head. Any r****d could do that. What I mean by education is instruction on how to properly store, handle, clean, and fire a gun. How many accidents are caused by people keeping loaded guns in a drawer that can be easily accessed by children? I mean Australia.
Never actually counted how many homicide scenes I've been to but I can safely say in the hundreds -- I was a major media reporter for 20 years. And I never said crimes don't occur. However, being armed rarely "takes away the physical advantage." Usually some poor store clerk who has no vested interest in the money he or she is protecting is the one who gets shot trying to fumble out a gun. The culprit almost always has the advantage of surprise, so even if the victim has a pistol, it doesn't do any good -- and may stimulate the chance for being harmed. Most robbers are too stupid and/or lazy to work -- they just want the money.
I think gun licensing classes should show people actually getting shot, screaming in agony, spewing arterial blood, gurgling blood bubbles out of flooded lungs, crying for someone to help them but knowing they are beyond help. I was standing across a fence from a guy once who had a gun pulled on him and then gettingt shot. He started squealing like a pig, really, it didn't even sound human. And that was before the dude pulled the trigger. When I had a gun stuck in my face, I couldn't get any sounds out. My throat just closed up. What I'm saying is all this defend yourself stuff sounds good in theory but without proper training you are probably more likely to crap your pants than defend yourself. You also have to consider the likelyhood of just not choosing to give it up and getting into an even more dangerous situation; not to mention having to deal with the consequences of a violent exchange, win or lose. I swear to you after the guy put my wife and I in the shower and told us if we came out before 5 minutes he would kill us, I made it to my shotgun but I was so shaken I couldn't remember how to flip off the safety. Good luck Cowboy.
That's kinda the point or part of it, at least. There was a time in our history when huge portions of the population carried guns with them nearly everywhere. During that period, crime rates were much lower than they are now. I don't buy that at all. From South v. Maryland to Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that you have no right to Police protection. (Some States do grant limited rights to police protection.) If an attacker is trying to get into your home, and it takes you a minute to get to a gun and 5 minutes for a cop to get to you, which is more likely to help? What if you live in a rural area and it takes 30 minutes for a cop to get to you? Generally, in this country, the police exist to maintain order in public, and catch bad guys after they commit crimes. They aren't really there to protect citizens (other than by locking up and discouraging criminals), especially in their homes. No offense meant, but that's a pretty "Duh!" statement. If the victim could respond in any fashion, it significantly decreases the likelyhood that the homicide is successful.
Right, that's where the gun training comes in. How many people who own guns actually know how to use them? How many people would rob stores if they knew they had an equal chance of getting shot?
The same number as always. Criminals are not the brightest of people -- they don't think these things through. They just act.
So, like I said, how's that working out in Australia? (And incidentally the homicide rate per capita is much higher now in Britain than it was before gun controls went into place).
Penetration and concealing is the key. If it cannot go through sheetrock (which is made of paper) than why do you think it will stop a bad guy intent on killing you? Also your huge shotgun that holds 5 rounds might look and sound cool but my handgun goes everywhere with me and holds 17+1.
Do you avoid the freeways? Because I would rather be shot than hit with an SUV. Infact the Number 1 killer in accidental deaths is Auto accidents. Firearms is not even close.
You watch too much television and/or go to too many movies. Very few in the "Wild West" carried pistols, which didn't work well anyway. The Winchester rifle changed the West. Just as an observation, you can't be well educated if you rely on Wikipedia for information. If you live in a neighborhood where you fear crime, get a 20-guage shotgun with a short (legal) barrel. One blast regardless whether you hit anything says "trump" to anybody with a pistol. My "duh" statements are made only because you obviously have no experience in what a shooting situation is like. I've been shot at on a number of occasions, including the Moody Park riot. BTW, despite that, I've never seen the need to carry a pistol.
This goes along with the belief that the .gov is responsible for making you safe from everything. It just isn;t true.
Anyways........... I am really excited about this case. They agreed to hear it for a reason. Their decision could be HUGE for the unconstitutional BS congress has been putting out there. Mostly on the fact that the .gov can regulate trade between states. If it was not for that loophole the .gov would have no legal standing for any gun control.
I'm sure it is. Probably takes about 30 seconds to operate a phone. Then you only have to wait another 7 or so before cop knock on your door to do the paperwork for your death.
Then call your elected officials to tell them you don't want police and 911 systems to protect you or your family since they are obviously so ineffective and ineffectual. Just make sure they know you are packing so you don't get mistaken for a bad guy. Almost forgot, if it takes you 30 seconds to punch 911, you must already be shot. Most of prepared people have a speed dial with 911 programmed into home and cell telephones.
Re-read my statement. I'm going to ignore this for sake of civilized discussion. I don't fear crime necessarily. I own a sporting 12-guage that would be reasonably effective at preventing crime. I keep it locked up because I know that I personally couldn't shoot anyone to defend myself or my stuff. I don't have a family now, so I can't speak on whether I would defend them or not. You are correct. The only time I have ever done anything related to a shooting situation is when I was a suburban volunteer firefighter and we had to go clean-up after homocides and suicides. I've never seen the need to carry a pistol other than to the range or woods either, but I enjoy shooting one, I recognize the benefits of an armed populace, and I believe in the right of anyone who feels like they need one to carry one.
