The Shotgun Blog
« Happy birthday, Ludwig von Mises! | Main | Whisper the Iggy »
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Self Defense Against Thugs
Imagine that it's 2A.M. ad you are at home, you hear voices outside that sound very close. You go outside and discover that there are thugs trying to break into your vehicle. You chase them off, only to run into their buddies around the corner. You run back home, retrieve some bear spray and a machete in order to protect yourself, but they pull a gun and fire at you. You run into your house and call the police. The thugs and their friends start kicking and banging your door. Meanwhile you wait for the police to arrive, knowing that they have guns, and you have bear spray.
This exact scenario recently took place in Winnipeg to Dale Dubowitz, who has decided it's time to move away.
"I'm stuck in a gang war here," Dubowitz said. "Where are these guys coming from?"
There are two points to be made here.
For most people, the government makes it illegal to properly defend yourself. Possession of bear spray in most cases is illegal, Mr. Dubowitz works as a hunting guide and can legally own it, police can also legally posses and use it; for everyone else not involved in hunting it is prohibited in Manitoba. Owning a gun, while very restricted, is possible. However, being able to use it for self-defense is made nearly impossible by the government. You need to keep the gun and the ammunition in separate locked rooms, in locked cases. When someone is banging on your front door trying to kill you and possibly your family, would you have time to retrieve the weapon to defend yourself with?
What could you do to protect yourself in this situation? How can you level the playing field when dealing with violent criminals? Gun control laws and the gun registry has done very little to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, because surprise surprise, they don't obey the law! It's the peaceful, law-abiding people that are victimized by these laws.
As long as violent thugs know that people aren’t armed and won’t have the tools to defend themselves, they have less incentive to back off.
Secondly, the reason that Mr. Dubowitz finds himself stuck in a gang war is because of various government actions. The prohibition on drugs gives gangs a market to thrive in, the black market trade of prohibited drugs that much of the gang violence in Winnipeg has been linked to this. If there were no prohibition, then there would be less crime as a result.
Mr. Dubowitz, the governments of Winnipeg, Manitoba and have failed you. Thanks to the police for getting there in time before you were murdered, after all, they have guns loaded and ready to go, while by law, you can't.
-----------
I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on September 29, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
All right. I give up. Let's make all drugs legal. Let's also make legal the shooting to kill of drug dealers by the public if the dealers offer drugs where private citizens do not want them.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-09-29 9:36:46 PM
I believe that it should be everyone's right to defend their home, business, property, family, etc. -- by ANY means necessary.
Look at what happened to the owner of a convenience store in Toronto (Mr. Chen): he performed a citizen's arrest of a thief, and now he's facing charges for doing the RIGHT THING.
Look at the farmer in Alberta who, a while back, shot a guy who trespassed on his property and attempted to steal a truck.
Former British PM Tony Blair was absolutely right when he said a few years ago: your home is your castle, and it is your right to defend it by any means necessary.
When someone enters your property without being invited, they commit a criminal act, and as the owner you should be entitled to defend yourself, your family and your property even if it means killing an unarmed intruder. An intruder is just that, an intruder, and must therefore be eliminated.
Criminals are scum and they have no "human" rights, as far as I am concerned. Anyone who commits a crime opts out of our legal system and therefore shouldn't be able to seek protection from the very same laws that they scoffed at before.
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-09-29 9:43:14 PM
Let's also make legal the shooting to kill of drug dealers by the public if the dealers offer drugs where private citizens do not want them.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-09-29 9:36:46 PM
If drugs were legal you'd probably buy them at teh store rather than from dealers, so the problem sovles itself :)
Posted by: Freedom Maniotba | 2009-09-29 10:08:13 PM
Also, I would love it if commenters would give a little more attention to the self defense angle than the drug angle.
Posted by: Freedom Maniotba | 2009-09-29 10:09:12 PM
I think it should be desirable to have a weapon in your home. Not that I have one at the moment, to much paper work :) I know it sounds crazy, but if thugs like that knew everyone was armed, they might think twice. Could also lead to the wild west scenario. So maybe not such a hot idea. Isn't there a country in Europe that has such a law? The populace must be armed? I think it had something to do with repelling Russia. How is it working out for them I wonder. I think it is Finland, but I'm not sure.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-29 10:18:22 PM
Oh by the way, I have a big ass dog for home defense. A 160 lb Great Dane. You want to real serious about entering my house if no one is home.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-29 10:20:17 PM
Not a chance! Druggies would not all of a sudden become good citizens - they'd continue to seek out their drugs from the cheapest source, legal or not. The idea that legalization means free money is a fantasy.
So there'll be plenty of opportunity to kill drug dealers who try to break into homes. Good shooting!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-29 10:22:18 PM
Actually, Freedom, if you keep your guns in a gun safe, as I do, then ammunition and firearms can be legally stored together. I have done the drill and can have a fully loaded shotgun in under 10 seconds, and have four speedloaders for my .357 magnum revolver. All perfectly legal.
It is also not true that without a safe, guns and ammo must be stored in separate locked rooms in locked cases. Long guns do not need to be locked up at all; you can prop one up against your kitchen door, provided it's unloaded and fitted with a lock. Ammunition must be stored separately unless both the cartridges and the firearm are locked in the same, hard-to-break-into container. (Again, a gun safe fills the bill nicely.)
That said, qualified citizens should certainly have the right to carry weapons for self-defence; I'm not going to argue the point. If a few hysterical women from Toronto and Montréal get the willies, tough. People's right to be safe outweighs their right to feel safe.
P.S. You could always keep ammonia throughout the house to throw in their eyes. And a good bright tactical flashlight to blind and disorient them is also a good idea. Finally, don't underestimate that most basic of weapons, the knife. It won't save your bacon in every case, but having one sure beats screaming for help!
P.S.S. They were stealing his car. Doesn't sound like drug-related crime to me.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 10:28:05 PM
"Druggies would not all of a sudden become good citizens "
What is a "good citizen"?
"they'd continue to seek out their drugs from the cheapest source"
Sounds like some area for free market competition.
Posted by: Freedom Maniotba | 2009-09-29 10:30:03 PM
"if you keep your guns in a gun safe, as I do, then ammunition and firearms can be legally stored together."
I'll take your word for it, I could have been wrong on that one. Perhaps I was making an assumption becasue that is what a relative of mine does, which I thought was legally required.
"Doesn't sound like drug-related crime to me."
True. I was pointing out that part of the gang problem is thier hand in the black market trade of drugs.
Posted by: Freedom Maniotba | 2009-09-29 10:31:39 PM
P.S.S.S. If you want something legal that will handle any situation, buy a .45-70 lever-action and stoke it with 550-grain hardcast backed by stiff powder charges. One of those babies will go through body armour or 20 millimetres of bulletproof glass like a dose of salt. It'll be hard for the Crown attorney to accuse you of buying a high-tech mega-magnum with cop-killer bullets if you're using a cartridge that was introduced 140 years ago.
In case you haven't guessed yet, guns are my hobby. :-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-29 10:33:28 PM
Some info about gun storage regulations in Canada..
http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/#storage
Posted by: Freedom Maniotba | 2009-09-29 10:34:43 PM
(1) The guy did not call the police at the earliest opportunity. He decided to pursue a confrontation instead. That's just stupid. Speaking of which....
(2) The guy's reckless use of bear mace injured his neighbour so that paramedics had to be called. Just think what damage he could have done to them if he came out spraying bullets. Nothing like a shoot-out to maximize collateral damage.
(3) The culprits were arrested, even despite the slow notification. The guy was not injured, despite his reckless confrontation. I'd say this story is a good example of why I don't need more armed neighbours.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-09-29 10:45:03 PM
Shane- That 45-70 would go straight through at least 4 walls. Too much penetration for my neighbourhood. I prefer a .38 snubby. Two layers of drywall, and some insulation pretty well makes it non-lethal. My idea of keeping the gun separate from the ammo is putting it in the sock drawer, and the shells in the underwear drawer. I only have to push the last digit, and give a final warning.
Fact check, you may find yourself wishing for an armed neighbour, someday. Preferably one who practises once in awhile.
Posted by: dp | 2009-09-29 11:41:44 PM
Some info about gun storage regulations in Canada..
Try here. I had the site bookmarked.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 12:14:50 AM
Yes, dp, the .45-70 is noted for penetration, but penetration is what kills. That's why when firing any gun defensively it's best to fire from a crouch, or prone (usually not practical in CQB). Not only do you minimize the target you present to the enemy, but any shots that overpenetrate will quickly arc over anything else in the area, and not come down for two miles—by which time the bullet's energy will be pretty much spent—although I suppose an ounce and a half of lead, falling simply via gravity, would still hurt. Better too much penetration than too little.
That said, my first choice would be my .357. Adequate for close work, nimbler, and you can hold a tactical light in the other hand. It is important to identify the target before you point the firearm—it just might be your kid coming home late—so none of these trendy rail guns with weaponlights! And make sure you fire with the arm fully extended, lest you become a victim of your own muzzle blast. As always, longer barrels are better.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 12:26:40 AM
Maybe he wanted to prevent damage to the car he paid good money for, Fact Check. It's a natural impulse to protect your people and goods. Not everybody hides under the bed in the hopes that the threat will pass them by. And how was using the bear spray "reckless"? He used it the way it was intended to be used, at a threat that tried to kill him.
It was only luck that the police got there as soon as they did, so you can stop acting as if situations like this invariably play out in the homeowner's favour if he only dives under the bed and wields that most fearsome of weapons, the portable cellular phone.
But of course, knowing you as I do, I'm perfectly prepared to believe you'd rather have a dead neighbour than one who had the right, and the means, to defend his life. Which is dumb. Because you'd find your caustic tongue quite useless against armed brigands.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 12:34:40 AM
Happiness is a warm gun mama
Happiness is warm gun mama
When I feel you--in my arms
And I feel your finger
On my trigger
I know nothin'
Can do me no harm.
John Lennon [the dead one]
shot to death by a seriously delusional 'kid'
high on Christ.
Just listen to yourself Matthews
frothing at the mouth and giving legitimate gun fanciers a bad rap--
Is anybody surprised at Pike fantasizing about killing imaginary 'drug dealers' out loud?
If ever there was a couple of losers crying out to be poster boys for gun control--these two top the list.
You know Matthews--you are really starting to p--- me off. I used to think guns were my hobby--I'm going to have rethink everything.
Just to show you there's no hard feelings--the 405 grain bullet performs better in the 45-70. Try starting out with 70 grains of 3031 and see what happens.
Don't try that at home kids--experts only!
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 1:53:00 AM
Shane,
Why are you so concerned about storage laws?
Shouldn't you be more worried about explaining the exit wound in the chest?
Christ, kids and their toys!
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 2:17:22 AM
My favorite form of gun control is holding it in both hands.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-30 6:24:49 AM
Frothing at the mouth? Have you listened to yourself, Smokey?
Oh, and lest we forget, having the colossal gall to make baseless accusations of murder directly after giving load data that would explode the rifle in the shooter's face? We're the nuts, though, you bet.
I reiterate: The reason marijuana is still illegal is because people take one look at longtime marijuana smokers and go, "Eww."
Yes, your unique perspective on the world has truly brought you happiness, hasn't it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 7:07:06 AM
P.S. For penetration, heavy-for-calibre bullets are better. The only advantage of lighter bullets is flatter trajectories–not really a concern when the range is five yards or less. And if you're THAT concerned about overpenetration, just cast the bullets nice and soft.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 7:12:15 AM
You break into my house you're getting a gun in the face. You mess with me, you're dead. (Or at least that's what I'd be going for)
Hunting is a PRIVILEGE. Target shooting at a range is a PRIVILEGE. Transporting a firearm on public roads is a PRIVILEGE. Owning a firearm for self defense is a RIGHT and NO ONE will take that right away from me.
Gun laws will never deter criminals from doing ANYTHING, all they do is make honest, law abiding citizens suffer at the hands of those that abuse the rules. Regardless of what stupid laws the liberals try to pass regarding gun prohibition I will NEVER give up my firearms - in the words of Charleston Heston, "From my Cold, dead, Hands..."
Posted by: NovaScotia4Life | 2009-09-30 9:42:55 AM
There is no law in Canada that says a firearm must be locked up at all times. You can remove it from storage for ANY reason you wish. Clean it, polish it, even to set it on the table and admire it. You can also have a loaded firearm ANYPLACE you can legally discharge it. You can legally discharge a firearm in your home when used for self defense. When a loaded firearm is sitting beside your bed at night, and you are with it, it is not in storage, it's in use for potential self defense. This has already been through the courts with regards to a pharmacist in Northbay Ont. who kept a loaded shotgun in the back room for protection. He was charged with unsafe storage, and the judge threw it out, because the gun was in use, not in storage. If someone breaks into my house they will be facing a loaded 12ga tactical S.G. and will be faced with two choices. Turn around and leave, I will 'then' call 911, or they can do something REAL stupid, and in that case, my ONLY concern will be, will my insurance company cover the biological cleanup...
Posted by: Bill | 2009-09-30 10:12:50 AM
Mostly true, Bill, except for a couple points. If you are with the firearm in bed at night, but are asleep, then the firearm is technically not in your custody, because you are not keeping watch over it. Moreover, a gun in plain sight is considered to be on display, and displayed firearms cannot be loaded or even have unlocked ammunition nearby. So they can, if they are so minded, nail you for that.
Of course, much depends on the local community's attitude towards firearms. Rural communities, which see firearms as tools, are much more forgiving than large cities, which see them mainly in the hands of pimps and gangsters in Hollywood films. A person in Kamloops or North Bay could follow your advice with reasonable confidence; a resident of downtown Toronto could not. This shouldn't be the case—the law should be the same for every Canadian—but that's the way it is.
For the same reason, you'd do better to use a sporting arm rather than a tactical arm as your defensive weapon. It's better to look like a friendly sportsman than Rambo. Appearances count. If five rounds of 00 buck can't sort out the trouble you're in, eight probably won't either. You can always set up a removable butt cuff with a set of reloads. And you do have a revolver for backup, right?
P.S. Your last sentence is as good an argument as any for hardwood floors instead of carpets. :-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 11:32:05 AM
These are all views expressed in Guns and Ammo circa 1962. If you are going to 'quote' Elmer Keith and Jeff Cooper at least give them the credit for the original thought, since you seem to be lacking anything fresh.
News flash--the game has changed--the rules evolve and so must we Responsible Gun Owners.
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 11:48:15 AM
Since when can any government assume the right to limit my right to self defense? It is the most basic and oldest natural right known to mankind. It is not up to politicians to determine if I have, or have not, got that right. It is fundamental to human self preservation. Not only that, it is also mentioned in the Magna Carta which is what our system of common laws is based on.
If somebody chooses to not arm themselves, it is a choice of a free man. Being denied the self-evident right to self defense by the State is a sign of not being a free man. Time we change these laws. There is already a long list of laws on the books for ending another person's life without cause. Self defense should not be among them. In fact, technically, it isn't against the law. Using excessive force, improper use of a firearm, improper storage, and a host of other laws is what the 'defender' gets charged with. It's merely a smokescreen to intimidate people from exercising their god-given rights.
Ask a policeman some time... he'll usually tell you:
1) make sure he is fully inside your house
2) make sure you don't shoot him in the back
3) make damn sure he is DEAD.
Posted by: arctic_front | 2009-09-30 11:53:43 AM
These are all views expressed in Guns and Ammo circa 1962.
You lie. The modern .45-70 Government case can hold, at maximum, 70 grains of black powder by volume (which is where it gets its name--.45 calibre bullet, 70 grains of powder). And that's if you use a drop tube. Smokeless powder like 3031 is more powerful than black powder and cannot be loaded 1 for 1. I have never seen a load listed for a 405-grain bullet with 3031 powder of more than 55 grains, and most used much less. If you're using a modern falling-block rifle, you can stuff the .45-70 to capacity. In a lever gun, you have to back off by about a third, because the action is not as solid.
If you are going to 'quote' Elmer Keith and Jeff Cooper at least give them the credit for the original thought, since you seem to be lacking anything fresh.
I never quoted anyone; those views were my own, although they are based on available reloading data. You claimed to quote, though, and apparently did it poorly, because before Marlin redesigned their lever guns to be stronger in 1972, they weren't even capable of 40,000 psi, much less the 60,000+ psi your load would generate. Your claimed article predates the redesign by ten years.
News flash--the game has changed--the rules evolve and so must we Responsible Gun Owners. If you are going to follow the actions and advice of a Neanderthal like Matthews the view is never going to change.
Keeping spewing venom, without recommending an alternate, more "enlightened" approach--only a load that might kill the shooter. How typically you, Smokey. And you're in no position to be calling anyone a Neanderthal. You're the one who's a throwback longing for halcyon days that will never come again, full of bitter contempt for the depraved days you have lived to see.
All he sees is hate--look at the track record.
Like a lot of self-righteous types, Smokey, you're very good at projection—taking your own flaws and projecting them onto other people, rather than admitting you have a problem yourself. So far, you've wished me childless, tried to blow me up, and attempted to manufacture evidence that I'm a covert agent. I knew a lot of you old hippie types were bitter, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Enjoy your golden years, Smokey.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 12:02:06 PM
On a most serious note: NOBODY TRY THE LOAD DATA SMOKEY RECOMMENDS. YOU WILL BLOW UP YOUR GUN.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 12:11:59 PM
What a dolt you are Shane--It's a yoke!
You know--a swedish funny story?
Ah, forget it!
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 1:07:46 PM
What a dolt you are Shane--It's a yoke!
Funny how you're the only one allowed to make them around here, Smokey. And only someone as stupid as you could think that a ruptured rifle barrel just makes someone look like a blackface minstrel with bits of the barrel banana-peeled around his face, and is therefore hysterically funny.
Publishing grossly dangerous load data in a level, serious tone is not humour. It's attempted murder. I knew you were a criminal, but I didn't know you were a filthy murdering scumbag.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 1:14:35 PM
@Arctic Front--In spite of my obvious distain and debilitating bias for the likes of Shane and Pike--I do hear you--and I have a hard time disagreeing, but I would change one word in your opening remarks from 'defense' to read 'control'.
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 1:16:26 PM
Here's what has happened when a nearly new Browning Mod. 1885 cal. 45-70 has been fired with a hand loaded round containing 70 grains of 3031 and a hand cast 405 grain bullet.
It blew the hammer back past the first sear--it did hit the target with the expected accuracy--it appeared the bullet was probably in liquid state at impact.
Like I said kids, don't try this at home--experts only!
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 1:27:43 PM
"Self control" is not remotely the same subject as "self defence," Smokey.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 1:28:55 PM
Shane--on your last comment alone--I rest my case.
Posted by: Smokey Chipotle | 2009-09-30 1:41:10 PM
Shane--on your last comment alone--I rest my case.
Your case for what? That no one understands your "yokes" but you, or that only an expert would want to blow up his gun?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 2:03:33 PM
Here is a reasonable topic and it attracts some interesting nutters. A debate with civility is impossible for some it seems.
I note a few who seem comfortable with the existing gun laws, which to me indicates how far we have relinquished our traditional freedoms, but that is another topic.
We are very much like the UK in that virtually any form of self-defence, defence of your family and property will get you charged. As to the cases that were thrown out by the courts, they are irrelevant. The point is that the people should never have been charged full stop. By the way anyone counting on the police to defend them should check out the response time. I know of cases where the person waited hours and when the RCMP finally showed up they threaten him for holding the thugs at gun point. I might add he had not fired a single shot.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-09-30 2:32:43 PM
Yes, Alain. Times in England and the Commonwealth have indeed changed since the days when citizens were required to be armed and expected to assist in the apprehension of outlaws. The ironic thing is that in 1900, England's gun laws were far more liberal than America's (it didn't have any at all) and their murder rate was still very low compared to America's. Clearly the mere availability of firearms does not affect the murder rate; something else was (and is) responsible for America's abnormally high violence levels.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-30 2:55:55 PM
In Italy, the conservative government has in the last year expanded the right to self defense(unlike Canada). Gun control is still very strict in Italy but there are signs of hope. Switzerland calls for keeping weapons in the home but the ammunition is tracked. In the traditionally socialist scandanavian countries, gun ownership is at higher levels than in Canada. Finland has the third highest rate of gun ownership in the world. However, guns are not allowed for self defense. Instead, they have to belong to a gun club or want the weapon for hunting purposes. The same thing applies in Norway. The joke is that both countries have conscription(they are small and have to worry about nearby Russia) and that many reservists have military grade weapons in their homes. The best is the United States where 33 states apply the castle doctrine. Heck, in Texas, the Castle Doctrine is expanded to include both yours and the neighbors property. In Texas, an old man saw two lowlifes robing his neighbors. He calls 9-11 but the cops wouldn't have got their in time. So, the old man steps outside and tells them to freeze. The guys walked towards him and the old guy shot them both dead. Local prosecutor said the old man was backed up by state laws on self defense.
Posted by: David | 2009-09-30 3:58:54 PM
Ignorance underlies most of the hate/fear that some in the general populace have for guns. The relentless drumbeat of anti-gun articles creates an image of guns as some sort of dark force of destruction with a mind of its own. Hollywood doesn't help, and our pandering politicians feed on this.
I've taken a number of gun-inexperienced people out to the range. Without exception every one told me how intimidated they were to hold the gun in their hand. With almost no exception, 15 minutes later they were firing away happily and wanted to come back again.
Later, with these same people, if you get into a discussion of whether it should be unlawful for ordinary citizens to have guns, not surprisingly a significant proportion of those who have enjoyed shooting confess that as long as the guns are stored safely, out of reach of children and easy theft, there seems to be no good reason to deny their ownership to free citizens. Cars and swimming pools are much more deadly than guns - it is accepted that people take responsibility for their use.
As for the self defense issue - it simply boggles the mind that people would be unwilling to have the capability to defend themselves against extremely violent people who in a blink will ruin their life, knowing full well that the police can do little to help. Again, I see this as pure media manipulation. Ordinary people have stopped thinking about this issue - for many it's a given that they must hope and wait for the police to save their bacon, and that they have only the right to flee, or hide.
A strong voice in the mainstream voice promoting the unquestioned right to armed self defense under extreme circumstances would find a lot of listeners.
Posted by: Lori | 2009-09-30 8:08:56 PM
Yes, Lori this propaganda has been going on for a long time and is getting more shrill, manly motivated by feminists who see all males as violent and evil.
I am old enough to remember a time before all this and there was no non sense about storage of guns and the guns my father kept in the house. None were kept loaded but neither were they under lock and key and the ammunition was kept in the same area. We were taught from the start that they were tools and not toys to be played with. As a result we learned to respect them and to use them (again taught by my father) only when necessary. We were also taught about safety during hunting. Funny that in those times when guns were quiet familiar to people, you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of accidental deaths due to firearms. Once they become restricted and removed to a "safe" place, kids naturally take a greater interest in the forbidden fruit, which results in the total opposite of what all the laws and restrictions claim to accomplish.
I should add that we were taught the same concerning knives, axes, machinery and other tools, so we simple understood that guns were also tools to be respected.
I think this is the reason for so many to feel intimidated by guns in our society to-day.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-09-30 8:32:20 PM
This is the lesson we learned in the USA. We tried gun control in several states and this exact scenario happened. That's why we are loosening the laws now and 35 states have shall-issue concealed carry. Hopefully, we will get a federal bill and make that 50.
Posted by: Foo Bar | 2009-10-01 10:48:47 AM
Gun control has never worked and will never stop crime we just have a bunch of irresponsible liberal morons who are always putting stupid gun bans and gun control bills through congress or the senate
Posted by: Flu-Bird | 2009-10-12 12:55:50 PM
Self defense should rise above everything. Shouldn't matter how you decide to defend yourself, your home and family. You just should be aloud to without legal reprications.
Posted by: Molly | 2009-10-19 11:40:57 AM
thanx Lori you are a hero i commend you for introducing more people to the joys of shooting sports and to help lift the growing shroud of ignorance around firearms and there use
self defense is a right that could save my life and if the government takes that right away from me its better to be in prison than dead i will have a gun as long as i live
Posted by: ryan | 2010-03-01 4:04:52 AM
when it comes to home defence guns why would you want a big centerfire riffle with high penitraton think about your sleeping daughter in the next room and what about the nebors with the new baby i am not saying dont have one by all means they have there place but not for self defence in the home
my personal preference is pump shotgun with 6 or 7 shot tube mag and use sporting clay loads (why) they have low penetration you can get them everywhere cheep and are less likely to go through walls and as for effectiveness give them the whole tube they wont hurt you after that. body armor dosent cover the face and arms
(side note criminals normally don't were body armor it hinders there evading cops) and don't leave one in the chamber with a pump you can action the mechanism without losing muzzle control and you can stay on target also tactical light can be useful red LED will save your night-vision and buy all means get the tacticool looking one with a side saddle full of extra shells between seeing you standing there in your bath roab /bunny slippers/underwear holding that bad-ass gun and (the sound of you) pumping in that first shell will send all but the most suborn criminals away running PS as stated before DO NOT SHOOT THE INTRUDER IN THE BACK that is your fast track to the big house i mean prison not a housing upgrade
Posted by: ryan | 2010-03-01 4:30:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.