Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You Libtards are always weak on crime. That is why we have so much crime in all the Democrat controlled big city shitholes. Pathetic weak Liberals like you are too chickenshit to hold the thugs accountable for their crimes, including thievery.I didn't think Russians were allowed firearms? Am I incorrect in that Flash?
To your post, what would lead you to think " you don't have the backbone to do the right thing?" I am merely stating that the law in each jurisdiction is different. Blanket statements that you can shoot people over property are clearly incorrect in multiple locations. After all I live in Texas and our laws are indeed liberal but now you are thinking.
What are the self defense laws where you are at Comrade?
I live in Texas Flash. Look up hat we're permitted to do in self defense and then what the cases actually say Flash. Most Americans know the standards Texans use for self defense. How about you're at Flash?You Libtards are always weak on crime. That is why we have so much crime in all the Democrat controlled big city shitholes. Pathetic weak Liberals like you are too chickenshit to hold the thugs accountable for their crimes, including thievery.
And what state is that Flash?I wouldn't kill somebody for stealing a pack of gum but i would shoot their sorry ass for anything major.
This response is absolutely from a person with zero training in self defense with a firearm. Oh, there may or may not be a shotgun close by with a 20 round mag in it. Hummmmmm.If you need 18 rounds to hit what you're aiming at then a handgun is not the weapon for you.
Try a shotgun 12 gauge, pump action.
Maybe a better solution is not putting yourself in a situation where you can't hit something with six rounds?
and, if you're in public then leave the gun at home.
You're more than 5 times more likely to be killed in an armed assault if you try to use your weapon as opposed to not having a weapon.
Me? I use my brain. I avoid places I know are dangerous and if someone decides to take me? I let them have all I got. Less than $30, DL, a CC, and insurance cards. Not worth dying over or killing for,
If you need 18 rounds to hit what you're aiming at then a handgun is not the weapon for you.
Try a shotgun 12 gauge, pump action.
Not everyone oh tiny minded poop thrower, but certainly you.News Flash: not everyone who doesn't think just like you is off in some polar opposite world.
You poor stupid far-left mainstream media brainwashed fool.
So someone who can't hit a target at close range is a self defense expertThis response is absolutely from a person with zero training in self defense with a firearm. Oh, there may or may not be a shotgun close by with a 20 round mag in it. Hummmmmm.
Please show me where I said "totally?"Where I live they killed my mailman for a five dollar bill, the gas station attendant for $50.00 in the register drawer which he backed off and allow the thief to take with his arms up in the air. Where do you get this idea you are totally safe by complying with a criminal?
The fact is that Americans use their firearms between 1 and 3 million times a year depending on which study you subscribe to for self-defense or to stop a crime against another. In most all cases nobody ends up getting shot. Very few "put themselves" in any situation no more than people putting themselves in a car accident situation. If somebody decides to shoot at me, I can't call the rules of the game, I can only shoot back whether he is ten feet away or 70.
And because you seem to have no knowledge of guns, the shorter barrel of a gun, the more you're going to miss. The longer distance between you and the target, the same thing applies. Even police officers with their longer barrel handguns (because they open carry) than most of us concealed carry citizens carry miss their targets most of the time as well.
Open carry.You can't conceal a shotgun when you leave your house.
It's this kind of adolescent talk that got you moved in here.Not everyone oh tiny minded poop thrower, but certainly you.
Open carry.
Or wear a long coat.
For those unable to hit a close target without firing 18 times.
There is so much more to trying to hit a target than just pulling a trigger when they are trying to delete your life or hurt you than appairently you'll ever understand. A self defense expert ? Not likely. Some expericence firing at targets under a little bit of stress yes. I have competed in IDPA ( International Defensive Pistol Association) matches, I have competed in many USPSA ( United States Practical Shooting Association) Matches and many local club 2 gun and 3 gun matches. So what is your experience that you think you have so much knowledge on hitting targets under stress?So someone who can't hit a target at close range is a self defense expert
BUT
someone who points out that someone who can't hit a target with 18 rounds at close range is better advised to use a shotgun because, at close range, it is nearly impossible to miss with a shotgun has zero knowledge of self defense?
I'll just leave this here and at some point you may get to realize just how ignorant that post was.
"News Flash: not everyone who doesn't think just like you is off in some polar opposite world.It's this kind of adolescent talk that got you moved in here.
That's why you use a shotgun.Nobody is going to walk around in a long coat when it's 80 degrees on a sunny day. Pretty difficult to go shopping at Walmart or pick up your prescription at night carrying a shotgun.
What makes you think all targets are at close range? What makes you think that every person drops like a rock after getting shot only once? What you are talking about is impracticable and it seems your knowledge of shooting a gun comes from movies.
As we were taught in CCW class, hitting a cardboard target at the range is much easier than hitting a target that may be shooting back at you. You are facing potential death, the adrenaline starts flowing, you are not going to be nearly proficient at hitting an attacker as you do shooting at cardboard figures.
"News Flash: not everyone who doesn't think just like you is off in some polar opposite world.
You poor stupid far-left mainstream media brainwashed fool."
The post he made that drew this whiny response.
If you don't want me to slap you, control yourself.
What got the thread moved was a dozen or so of your buddies and MODS who don't want to mod.
That's why you use a shotgun.
Or follow the safer route and leave your guns at home.
Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.
I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.
So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?
IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.
I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.
Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.
I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.
Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.
Do you have to pull your gun out of it's holster to have a defensive gun use?
OK
If a person forces their way into your home, armed or not, whatever their intentions, the use of a firearm is justified.
Outside the home? It is very rarely the case that a firearm is either justified or provides actual protection for the carrier.
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
An armed victim in a robbery is nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed victim. Victims who had the opportunity to resist using their firearm were nearly 5.5 times as likely to be shot than unarmed victims.
From the robber's point of view, he doesn't want to shoot you. He wants your money, drugs, car. Dropping bodies brings heavy police action, something he wants to avoid. A robbery, car theft? Police will take a report and leave but police will investigate shootings.
Additionally, in my opinion, carrying a firearm in public increases the likelihood an armed person will willingly insert himself into dangerous situations believing their firearm will protect them. This, as shown by the referenced data is a mistaken belief.
I'm not opposed to concealed carry provided the person has received proper and ongoing training and testing.
Open carry is another thing. When someone open carries they are intending to be perceived as a threat. This guy
View attachment 762469
Is an example. If the deli at his favorite grocery store is that dangerous, maybe selecting a less dangerous deli is a better choice than all that armament, Of course, the purpose of all those guns is to appear threatening. The problem is that when you try to appear threatening, sometimes people take the threat seriously then the carrier has put lots of people at risk.
Auto semi-auto weapons are not appropriate for self defense. If you're ready you carry one in the chamber. Lots of people have died because someone forgot about the one in the chamber. Additionally the weapons can be prone to jamming or other failures.
Revolvers are much better suited to self defense than semi-automatic weapons.
OK
If a person forces their way into your home, armed or not, whatever their intentions, the use of a firearm is justified.
Outside the home? It is very rarely the case that a firearm is either justified or provides actual protection for the carrier.
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...
An armed victim in a robbery is nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed victim. Victims who had the opportunity to resist using their firearm were nearly 5.5 times as likely to be shot than unarmed victims.
From the robber's point of view, he doesn't want to shoot you. He wants your money, drugs, car. Dropping bodies brings heavy police action, something he wants to avoid. A robbery, car theft? Police will take a report and leave but police will investigate shootings.
Additionally, in my opinion, carrying a firearm in public increases the likelihood an armed person will willingly insert himself into dangerous situations believing their firearm will protect them. This, as shown by the referenced data is a mistaken belief.
I'm not opposed to concealed carry provided the person has received proper and ongoing training and testing.
Open carry is another thing. When someone open carries they are intending to be perceived as a threat. This guy
View attachment 762469
Is an example. If the deli at his favorite grocery store is that dangerous, maybe selecting a less dangerous deli is a better choice than all that armament, Of course, the purpose of all those guns is to appear threatening. The problem is that when you try to appear threatening, sometimes people take the threat seriously then the carrier has put lots of people at risk.
Auto semi-auto weapons are not appropriate for self defense. If you're ready you carry one in the chamber. Lots of people have died because someone forgot about the one in the chamber. Additionally the weapons can be prone to jamming or other failures.
Revolvers are much better suited to self defense than semi-automatic weapons.
