Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun

msolga wrote:

I haven't read most of the posts to this thread.
I'm simply responding to the title of the thread now.
If, to feel safe where I live (in my own home & on the streets),
I thought I had to own (& possibly use!) a gun to protect myself .....

When I was 8 years old, I moved to Arizona,
to a peaceful, pleasant neighborhood;
yet, I felt uneasy about my personal safety,
UNTIL I acquired a .38 revolver from another kid
( I won it in a poker game with him ).
Then I FELT a lot safer ( tho I never had to use it, defensively ).

Quote:

well, I'd very seriously consider moving to some far more civilized place.
Living in a situation like that is unthinkable.

Is there a place on Earth that has no chance of crime ?
Maybe the Vatican ?

I didn't read the whole thread. But I do wonder why I never ever felt so unsafe I thought I needed a gun. Are we different in Europe? We have crime, too. Strange...

Don't know how reliable the source is, but I found this interesting.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml

OmSigDAVID wrote:

msolga wrote:

I haven't read most of the posts to this thread.
I'm simply responding to the title of the thread now.
If, to feel safe where I live (in my own home & on the streets),
I thought I had to own (& possibly use!) a gun to protect myself .....

When I was 8 years old, I moved to Arizona,
to a peaceful, pleasant neighborhood;
yet, I felt uneasy about my personal safety,
UNTIL I acquired a .38 revolver from another kid
( I won it in a poker game with him ).
Then I FELT a lot safer ( tho I never had to use it, defensively ).

Quote:

well, I'd very seriously consider moving to some far more civilized place.
Living in a situation like that is unthinkable.

Is there a place on Earth that has no chance of crime ?
Maybe the Vatican ?

It seems that you had a very sad childhood.

It probably accounts for your feelings of fear as an adult.

Don't know how reliable the source is, but I found this interesting.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml

I didn't read the whole thread.
But I do wonder why I never ever felt so unsafe I thought I needed a gun.
Are we different in Europe? We have crime, too. Strange...

I don't want a gun.

Quote:

Should I be forced to have one?

There was Colonial law that required anyone going to Church
or to work to be well armed ( in the spirit of modern seatbelt laws ).
Shud u be forced to wear a seatbelt, Pancakes ?

Quote:

How about I go out and buy me and Montana some tasers ?
Ok, that might be fun!

R thay effective ?
Unreliable; I get the impression that Montana is smarter than that.

Quote:

The solutions are simple, only difficult to execute. And too much effort for most people.

See seatbelt question hereinabove set forth.

Quote:

Guns are like the flip side of the same damn coin. Everyone is a victim.

Explain ?

Quote:

Well, the solution is address that mentality and put the responsibility where it belongs.

It's sickening how people are being rewarded left and right (literally and politically speaking heh) for acting like victims.

I have suggested forgetting about the tools that predatory criminals use,
and dispose of the CRIMINALS by long term incarceration
or ( less expensively ) by BANISHMENT from this continent.

David

mushypancakes wrote:

I don't want a gun.

Quote:

Should I be forced to have one?

There was Colonial law that required anyone going to Church
or to work to be well armed ( in the spirit of modern seatbelt laws ).
Shud u be forced to wear a seatbelt, Pancakes ?


Huh? I was joking. Except about the part about not wanting a gun.

Quote:

How about I go out and buy me and Montana some tasers ?
Ok, that might be fun!

R thay effective ?
Unreliable; I get the impression that Montana is smarter than that.

Tasers I don't know terribly much about. I was joking, mostly. Though they can do some harm and take down a guy in a pinch!

Quote:

The solutions are simple, only difficult to execute. And too much effort for most people.

See seatbelt question hereinabove set forth.

Yes, like I mentioned, too much effort for most people. If we make a law to supposedly protect us from lazy and stupid people (as per the seatbelt law) - things only go downhill from there.

So cars get faster and we have more of them, and then I get fined if I don't wear a seatbelt. Makes no sense.

Quote:

Guns are like the flip side of the same damn coin. Everyone is a victim.

Explain ?

Well, for someone to feel so vulnerable that they feel the need to carry a weapon that can extinquish human life at any time, that seems like a weak sort of position to be in.

The position of someone who feels they need constant, extreme protection. That sounds like a perpetual victim to me.

Quote:

Well, the solution is address that mentality and put the responsibility where it belongs.

It's sickening how people are being rewarded left and right (literally and politically speaking heh) for acting like victims.

I have suggested forgetting about the tools that predatory criminals use,
and dispose of the CRIMINALS by long term incarceration
or ( less expensively ) by BANISHMENT from this continent.

That's interesting.

That is one set of ideas to deal with criminals. I suppose we all have our own.

I think one thing many of us can agree on is that criminals are often left with too much opportunity to re-offend before having seen fair concequences for their choices (as offenders).

David

Take care, David.

urs53 wrote:

I didn't read the whole thread. But I do wonder why I never ever felt so unsafe I thought I needed a gun. Are we different in Europe? We have crime, too. Strange...

I don't think it is any different in Europe than in Canada. It does seem, however, that the U.S. predisposition to gun ownership and bravado with weapons causes a different mindset. According to people like cjhsa and David, violent predators are at every corner waiting to pounce on people. It must be terrible to live in such fear.

Canadians should consider the following if using a weapon, even for self defence. If, they are ever able to acquire a weapon, since it is much harder to acquire in the first place than some seem to think.

Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault
is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause
death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to
defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous
bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm
from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the
assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve
himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

urs53 wrote:

I didn't read the whole thread.
But I do wonder why I never ever felt so unsafe I thought I needed a gun.
Are we different in Europe? We have crime, too. Strange...

Quote:

I don't think it is any different in Europe than in Canada.
It does seem, however, that the U.S. predisposition to gun ownership
and bravado with weapons causes a different mindset.

This is TRUE.
Personal armament, in self defense
gives rise to a sense of INDIVIDUALISM and self reliance,
as distinct by the unarmed reliance
upon the henchmen of society, the police ( like Reginald Denny or Kitty Genovese )

Quote:

According to people like cjhsa and David,
violent predators are at every corner waiting to pounce on people.

Intrepid, is it because u have so little confidence
in your posted beliefs that u find it necessary
to resort to mendacity, deception, prevarication, grotesque distortion
and misrepresentation of my posted postition on these matters, and of Cj 's ?
U shud be ashamed of yourself.

It appears that u have found it impossible to dispute our position,
without LYING about what we said, and what we represent.
It has consistently been my posted position NOT that crime is so prevalent
as u falsely allege that I said,
but that the same as getting a flat tire:
u can go for decades without having that happen -- with luck, maybe never--
but that it is PRUDENT to keep a spare tire n jack in your trunk, anyway.

It has been my consistently posted position
that gun possesion for personal defense is done in the same spirit
as paying your premium for health insurance:
u don 't KNOW that u 'll get a heart attack, but just in case.

Failure to be prepared is irresponsible.

Quote:

It must be terrible to live in such fear.

In this statement,
u project your OWN emotions.
As I have posted quite a few times,
since I acquired a gun at age 8,
I have entertained a sense of serenity.

I have repeatedly asserted that my concerns r not for my own security,
but that I ardently desire all of my fellow Americans to be armed to the teeth
and that those with dangerous histories
shud be BANISHED from this continent,
with sneaking back in prohibited on pain of death.

Quote:

Canadians should consider the following if using a weapon, even for self defence.

If, they are ever able to acquire a weapon,
since it is much harder to acquire in the first place than some seem to think.

Well, if thay r too lazy to get it on the blackmarket,
thay can make guns themselves.
For centuries, guns were handmade,
before the advent of electric tools.
Of course, its much faster n easier now
with well developed n well published engineering technology and power tools.

Quote:

Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault
is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause
death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to
defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous
bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm
from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the
assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve
himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

If I were a subject of Canadia,
I 'd vote for politicians who were NOT so supportive of CRIMINALS' well being,
but instead cared only about self defense of THE DECENT PEOPLE
who will pay his salary, and I 'd not be afraid to demand that of him,
when he campaigns for election, in exchange for my vote.


David

Intrepid wrote:

urs53 wrote:

I didn't read the whole thread. But I do wonder why I never ever felt so unsafe I thought I needed a gun. Are we different in Europe? We have crime, too. Strange...

I don't think it is any different in Europe than in Canada. It does seem, however, that the U.S. predisposition to gun ownership and bravado with weapons causes a different mindset. According to people like cjhsa and David, violent predators are at every corner waiting to pounce on people. It must be terrible to live in such fear.

Canadians should consider the following if using a weapon, even for self defence. If, they are ever able to acquire a weapon, since it is much harder to acquire in the first place than some seem to think.

Defence of Person
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault
is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause
death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to
defend himself.
Extent of justification
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous
bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm
from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the
assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve
himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

That's the most retarded bullshit lawyer speak I've ever had the displeasure to read.
It's a license to steal.
If someone decides to attack me or my family,
they can expect to be greeted with deadly force.
The most basic human right is that of self defense.
Those who cannot understand that and attempt to regulate it are truly stupid.
Or at least afraid of personal freedoms.

I have this image of Intrepid waking up to a burglar in his/her bedroom.
The burglar is stealing everything he can carry, but he's not threatening
Intrepid because his arms are full of loot. Intrepid hides under the sheets
until the burglar leaves, then he calls the police.

I just can't undertstand the victim mentality.