Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun

There are people who live up towards the mountain in this state
and it might take cops at least 30 minutes to respond driving at over 100 mph.
Most of those people are armed.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

mushypancakes wrote:

I don't want a gun.

Quote:

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.

Is that similar to the financial burden
of carrying health insurance all the time ?

Guns are health insurance
and
property insurance.

Quote:

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

My personal experience with this
was a state of vague apprehension n disquiet
until I won a gun. I was thereafter invested with serenity,
feeling that I cud make some reasonable effort to defend myself, if necessary; ( it never was ).
Accordingly,
since that time I did NOT feel like a victim, nor a potential victim.

David

There are people who live up towards the mountain in this state and it might take cops at least 30 minutes to respond driving at over 100 mph. Most of those people are armed.

I agree with David and cj. It's not about being scared, but about being prepared, just in case.

A lot of people don't think about someone breaking into their homes and what they would do about it if it happened.

We were all taught what to do in case of a fire, but what do we do in case of a psycho, who think nothing of breaking into your home and doing whatever their sick minds tell them to do to you and your family.

When I lived in Waltham (36 years), I would have never thought of ever getting a gun, but that's because we had a huge police force and murder wasn't heard of in my city.

Up until recently, the closest police department was a half hour drive from here and I made some noise about that. My son slid on some ice coming home from work one night, ending up in a ditch and trying to get the # to the nearest police dept was a joke.
We waited an hour and a half for an RCMP to show up, so this is when I started feeling a little bit insecure.

Don't know if my making noise made a difference, but now we have a police dept 6 miles away and I see more cops in the area.
This makes me feel a bit more comfortable, but as long as the law keeps letting violent offenders out on the streets, I'd feel much more secure knowing I had some sufficient means of defense.

I never ever dreamed that my mother would agree with me, but she reads the paper every day (I don't) and watches the news (I don't) and she sees what's going on, so she's all for me getting a gun (just in case).

I took karate for self defense when I was a teenager, where they taught be how to kill a person will my bare hands, unfortunately, my bare hands can't stop a bullet.

I use to argue with cj and David about their constant talk about defense, but after seeing what's going on around me in my quiet little country town, I can understand now why they feel so strongly about it.

They're fighting to keep the right to defend themselves and for everyone else to defend themselves and now I will too.

Heaven help us if the criminals
are the only ones left with the deadliest weapons.

Sheep and coyotes keep coming to mind.

If people feel comfortable without having a gun, that's their choice,

but those of us who prefer to be prepared for that "just in case"
should have the right to have at least as sufficiant means of defense
as the criminal is holding.

I would feel much safer if they could stop letting the criminally violent people out of jail,
but I don't think I'll hold my breath on that.

TTH wrote:

There are people who live up towards the mountain in this state
and it might take cops at least 30 minutes
to respond driving at over 100 mph. Most of those people are armed.

I live in the country and most people here are armed as well.
mostly hunters, but I'm sure they have defense in mind as well.

When you're in the woods, you are more vulnerable because you're not
surrounded by neighbours (witnesses), although I feel safe where I am at
the moment because my neighbours do watch out for us.
One is a dirty old man, but he has a gun

We are talking about moving, though.

I mentioned this before in another thread, but I own a cabin that is in the middle of nowhere. The two track is 1/2 mile long to get in there, and the closest sheriff lives 10 miles away. Last summer my wife and I were awakened at 4:30AM by the road sensor alarm. Now if that doesn't scare the bejusus out of you I don't know what would. I was very happy to have my shotgun, and happier to see them turn around and leave when they realized someone was home.

Up there EVERYONE has guns, it's not even questioned. It's hard to say if that person was lost or looking for a place to burglarize. Since I cannot guess their intentions, I'd rather be prepared than be a victim.

Another one of those stories you read about in which a gun might have made a difference:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iWM0H8l31ZzQMSSMg1iPdxoRxQmQD8U8F82G0

Montana wrote:

TTH wrote:

There are people who live up towards the mountain in this state
and it might take cops at least 30 minutes
to respond driving at over 100 mph. Most of those people are armed.

I live in the country and most people here are armed as well.
mostly hunters, but I'm sure they have defense in mind as well.

When you're in the woods, you are more vulnerable because you're not
surrounded by neighbours (witnesses), although I feel safe where I am at
the moment because my neighbours do watch out for us.
One is a dirty old man, but he has a gun

We are talking about moving, though.

After u get your LadySmith,
u won 't have to depend on HIS gun.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Montana wrote:

TTH wrote:

There are people who live up towards the mountain in this state
and it might take cops at least 30 minutes
to respond driving at over 100 mph. Most of those people are armed.

I live in the country and most people here are armed as well.
mostly hunters, but I'm sure they have defense in mind as well.

When you're in the woods, you are more vulnerable because you're not
surrounded by neighbours (witnesses), although I feel safe where I am at
the moment because my neighbours do watch out for us.
One is a dirty old man, but he has a gun

We are talking about moving, though.

After u get your LadySmith,
u won 't have to depend on HIS gun.

Exactly David! This is what got me thinking about getting one in the first place. regardless of whether we move or not, I still want one.
I'm ultimately the only one I can depend on to keep our home safe.

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.

cjhsa wrote:

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.

Quote:

You are pretty loose with calling people names.
But, of course that is how you react when you have nothing but stupid things to say.

This is how Intrepid proves that HE does not call people names.

Quote:

It is no wonder that you live in fear in your little corner with your big, bad guns.

He has given NO evidence of fear, unlike yourself.
( Unless u r implying that he shud have been brave enuf
to fire upon the retreating intruder. )

Quote:

Grow up.

There is no evidence that such cowardice as yours is related to MATURITY.

Do u worship at the feet of Neville Chamberlain ??

Quote:

Someone attacking you
and someone stealing from you are two entirely different things.

Yes, but in both instances,
the victim has a natural human right to kill the offender.

Quote:

Even you should be able to see that. But,
unfortunately, you are too stuck in your gun nut world to see that.

Centuries before guns were invented,
all victims had the same rights to defend their property, including their lives.
Thay cud use swords, axes, clubs, garrots, chains, rocks.
I guess that u 'd call them ax nuts or rock nuts, right, Intrepid ??

He who kills an intruder like that renders a VALUABLE PUBLIC SERVICE
and shud get a tax credit; maybe a holiday named after him.


David

Didn't call Int any names, just used him as an example.
The stupid I was referring to was those who wrote and signed that BS into law.


Why would you have laws designed to protect criminals in the act?

It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever.

You are pretty loose with calling people names.
But, of course that is how you react when you have nothing but stupid things to say.

This is how Intrepid proves that HE does not call people names.
David

Intrepid wrote to cjhsa:

Quote:

You are pretty loose with calling people names.
But, of course that is how you react when you have nothing but stupid things to say.

(colour emphasis David's)

Quote:

This is how Intrepid proves that HE does not call people names.
David

David,
You should really read carefully before you post a reply to someone that replied to another poster.
You should note that I did not call cjhsa any name at all.
I called what he said stupid. THAT IS FALSE. THAT IS NOT WHAT U SAID.
You claim to be a lawyer and a MENSA member....
YOU should know the difference.