I teach firearm self defense and qualify people to get their concealed licenses. You need a little education because you have some false beliefs. Women carry in the USA. About 25% of my attendees are women. Successful uses of firearm self defense are the norm here. Here are over 600 pages of stories of successful self defense. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
I am not denying that self defense with a firearm is effective, i just find it excessive. if you were to shoot someone, that is worse a crime coming from you than it was a crime coming from them. i mean, what will they do to you? Unfortunately, we will never know, because they got shot. if you consider the options, on the one hand we have people that want something from the 'victim,' and on the other we have a most dangerous affair. this turns the perpetrator into the victim, of course. My solution leaves no shot off legs and costly medical procedures. economically,it is much easier to submit and claim from insurance than it is to have doctors rushing around trying to save someone. this means time off work, which is welfare if you ask me, yes?
If you use it against someone that doesn't have a gun, then you are in the wrong. if you were to observe that someone without a gun is a victim of those that do have a gun, well, let me make an analogy? Timmy sat on the balcony. the perpetrator tried to push timmy off the building, but, timmy had a easy fall to the bottom as he was covered by insurance. then, timmy kicked out the supports on the building and had the perpetrator fall to their death. I hope i have explained myself well?
You are perfectly free to not carry a gun for whatever reason you choose. Don't presume that your thoughts on the matter apply to anyone but you.
Incorrect. Presuming a legitimate case of self-defense, if the person is a credible threat to my life or physical well being, I have the right to shoot him regardless of the weapon he has, if any.
If you have aids, do you have the right to give it to someone that is threatening your life? if you have a saw, may you cut their leg off?
There is nothing excessive about saving your life and the lives of your loved ones from criminals that are using deadly force against you.
Is what they are doing excessive? how about yourself? it takes someone to be 'mature,' yes? who the hell wants to kill you for fun? they don't want to kill you, what sort of person wants to kill another except a mass shooter? this means that when someone breaks into your house, just run out the front door. no problem. if someone hitchhikes in your car, run away. No excessive force is necessary.
Presuming a legitimate case of self-defense, if the person is a credible threat to my life or physical well being, I have the right to shoot him regardless of the weapon he has, if any. This is not excessive force. You are perfectly free to not have/carry a gun for whatever reason you choose. Don't presume that your thoughts on the matter apply to anyone but you.
This is Florida State law copy and pasted right from the book .. most other states have similar statutes. 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Please stop repeating yourself. [MENTION=61482]OrlandoChuck[/MENTION] ; This is the law. it is not the law to defend your neighbor is it? now, if your neighbor is in danger, is it your right to defend them with deadly force? could they defend you with deadly force? In this instance, the neighbor is your local police service. they should carry guns - people are too stupid to carry guns. imagine them at home, you too - aiming them at the news paper baddies and fantasizing about using your weapons? this is a dark fantasy, yes? Now the more dark fantasies you have, the more of a dark fantasy your life becomes. this is why people become so withdrawn into their own little worlds, where they get to use their weapons. you know those guys walking around thinking of using their weapons - this is habit forming, the more you fantasize about it, the more likely you are to do it, yes? So, the fact you own a gun makes it more likely the more you have it that you will use it, yes? imagine some guy getting mugged or killed - why would they kill them? because of dark fantasies, yes? this comes from comic books and guns and games. there is nothing like a sane gun user, and the fact they own a gun makes it more dangerous a situation. On the other hand, if there were no guns, people would bolt their doors instead of having a scene out of "home alone," yes? if they were to observe that there re more gun deaths than break ins, and, that never ever is a person killed over a v.c.r, maybe a mercedes benz, then we might come to the conclusion that guns are bad things. they are bad because they kill. tare we allowed to carry nukes? are we allowed to drive tanks? what if the police need help? what if the country is about to suffer a nuclear holocaust? If you think having guns will save you, it will un save someone else. if they cannot kill you, you cannot kill them. this is like turning hte other cheek, yes? if someone is to be wrong, it won't be you as you are submitting.
Maybe you should read the law a little closer..... 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be." Your whole argument is "IF THERE WERE NO GUNS". News flash.. There are nearly a half a billion guns in America. Basing an argument on "if there were no guns" is fantasy. Try staying grounded in reality. We have a constitutional right in this country and we are setting gun sales records every month. We are setting carry license records every month. Women are setting records in gun ownership and carry licensing. Since this shooting here in Orlando, my phone hasn't stopped ringing with folks making appointments for carry classes. I was already going to have a record year, but this should make it probably double the students that I had last year. I have to ask you this.... it is proven that people legally carrying with a licenses are very rarely ever arrested for gun crimes. Why are you posting about a problem that doesnt exist when gang bangers and thugs in urban environments are responsible for the majority of firearm homicides according to the FBI.
The difference is time. If I use a gun to defend myself, my intention is to save myself in that moment. My intent isn't killing, but in stopping them from killing me. Giving someone AIDS doesn't fit that. It doesn't stop the attack.
Is that how it's done in South Africa? In the U.S., breaking into an occupied dwelling is a much more serious crime than breaking into an unoccupied dwelling. For that reason, my presumption (and that of Florida law) is that anyone willing to break into an occupied house's interest is in more than just the stuff in the house. The intent is harm to the occupants. I don't ever want to kill anybody, but I would rather kill somebody than have them kill, rape or hurt my loved ones.
Does it bother you when someone posts something you cannot refute? You are perfectly free to not have/carry a gun for whatever reason you choose. You are perfectly free to not use a gun to protect yourself or your loved ones. Don't presume that your thoughts on the matter apply to anyone but you.
The law posted does say that I have the right to use deadly force if somebody is committing a forcible felony--it doesn't specify it has to be a loved one. I'm allowed to protect neighbors or strangers or even you.
To all of you, except [MENTION=70661]scarlet witch[/MENTION] i would like to say you have not convinced me, and i have not convinced you. i can see your points of view, that you are allowed to kill people, it disturbs me that you are so into killing people that it seems to override the other options. I am done here for now. maybe we can do it again later, after i have more resourcefulness to draw on?
Good idea that you educate yourself with more resources because so far you are completely out matched by written law and facts.
Ideally, the best option would be pointing the gun at the person endangering others, and he would stop, the police would be called, and he would be arrested. It is the most common thing that happens with gun owners and criminals. Thankfully, shooting isn't always necessary.
I take it you've never been to Texas. There are over 1 million Licenses To Carry and women are flocking to gun stores and getting training at an ever increasing rate.
The number of women who are purchasing, carrying, and using firearms is growing each year. The firearms industry has acknowledged this fact, and even introduced models specifically tailored for female shooters.
