FROM A VICTIM's PERSPECTIVE: IS IT BETTER TO BE HELPLESS?

Quote:

I believe it's probably better to be unarmed and helpless rather
than being armed with a weapon which you cannot use effectively
and which may be turned on you and increase the lethality of the situation.

Practice, practice, practice

Quote:

But it's all very complicated

Revolvers are less complex than automatics.

Quote:

and depends largely on what the predator has in mind for you

Yeah; its a good thing that thay always tell u first.
Who 'd distrust their honesty ?

Quote:

If he's planning killing you no matter what,
then even a toothpick to stick in his eye is better than nothing.

SO STIPULATED, but a .44 special loaded with hollowpointed slugs
is even better than a toothpick.

Quote:

But if he's inclined to harass you and let you go rather than killing you

Yeah, u coud ask him. . . .

Quote:

then you might be better off not to threaten him with a knife or gun
which could be turned against you if you fail to use it properly or quickly enough.

It can be very important to be FAST.

Quote:

As I think I noted on one of your other threads,
the value of having a gun for self defense is greatly affected
by a person's ability (and willingness) to use the gun

He who is unwilling to shoot the perpetrator of predatory violence upon him probably shoud not carry a gun;
(altho the mere display of a defensive gun, without more, has been enuf to scare some of them away).

I believe that there are some people who are simply unwilling
to harm anyone regardless of any reason, including self defense;
people who say that thay prefer to be killed than to kill.
That is not my point of vu.

Quote:

and more importantly, to keep it safe when not in use.

I must disagree concerning its being more important.
I am reminded of the misadventures of the Carpenter family
of Merced, California who were so injudicious as to lock up all of
the family 's guns before the parents left home. Thay neglected,
fatally neglected, to leave the keys with their children, who were good shots.

During their absence, a naked homicidal maniac, armed with a pitchfork
cut their fone line and entered their home, proceeding to stab to death
some of the children, who were in full compliance with all gun control laws: 100% helpless.

Noteably, the naked homicidal maniac was sufficiently politically correct
to murder them with a pitchfork, rather than a gun. Fortunately,
for lack of the keys, the other children were frustrated & defeated
in their efforts to use the family guns defensively
while their kin were being slaughtered, so that Mr. Bruce,
the aforesaid naked homicidal maniac, was not harmed.

Police arrived after being summoned from a neighbor 's house.
For SOME REASON [??] their guns were not locked up.
Mr. Bruce charged them with his pitchfork and thay shot him to death,
as the Carpenter children were not able to do because their guns were locked up when not in use.
Accordingly, the police live and the children die (some of them).

Too much of unknown outcomes there ros. Being untrained in handling a weapon is certainly a reason to not carry one, but if I were trained and could handle a gun, Id like to be able to walk in relative safety.
The argument of gun laws doesnt boil down to this ridiculous topic that DAve is using. Gun control is a matter of uncontrolled ownership and brandishing of weapons. Its the ability to buy unchecked and unlimited amount of weapons pwer unit time. Its a lack of laws that dont control knowing who owns a gun, or lack of laws preventing felons to get a gun .
I choose to be protected by a gun simply because the rest of the gun laws have been castrated by the NRA and guys like Dave.

I disagree vehemently with Daves "uncontrolled ownership" of guns based upon some interpretation of the second amendment that isnt even in the second amendment.

"Shall not be infringed..." has been interpreted to mean "unlimited lack of control"

guns are beyond the reach of government, the same as Bibles.

On the other hand, I've been accosted by more people carrying Bibles than guns. Well, pamphlets and literature to be more accurate.

FROM A VICTIM's PERSPECTIVE: IS IT BETTER TO BE HELPLESS?

Quote:

guns are beyond the reach of government, the same as Bibles.

. Id rather be accosted by a thug brandishing a Bible though.

Are you admitting tht you could buy into specific control laws in order that guns not be so out of control?

Quote:

FROM A VICTIM's PERSPECTIVE: IS IT BETTER TO BE HELPLESS?

I don't think it's complicated at all - the answer to that question is: 'No'.

CONTROL on behalf of those who'd be victimized by unlawful use
of guns by criminals. Apparently all the "gun freedoms" that you espouse,
have not worked a damn. We are being drowned in gun crimes.
Your side has no ideas, you are bankrupt when it comes to anything that will work.

Quote:

If I may, in Canada (perhaps the Commonwealth) you can only use
as much force as applied to you. So, unless your supposed attacker
actually demonstrates he will do someone harm, you can't jump the gun per se and blow him away.

That law puts the defending, innocent citizen and his life at a disadvantage,
since the predator is free to be as aggressive as he wishes
and u r left to guess how severely he will afflict you.
Your government -- that u financially sustain -- limits your defense
and reduces your probability of survival. If u perish, the government is no worse off from it;
i.e., your government is loyal to the bad guy at the expense of the good guy.

For that reason, your government is evil.

Quote:

You can only respond in kind, equal force eg: if a person throws a punch,
you can't stab him with a knife and get away with it, unless you
can prove your life was in danger and regardless of where the
alleged offence took place you will be charged.

When u find out, it may be too late; u may have already suffered permanent injuries,
including death because of the Canadian government 's protection of the evil guy.
Shoud the elderly and weak wait until the aggressor has completed his attack
so that thay will know the degree of defensive force that thay shoud apply ?
Procrastination during the battle (unpredictably) can cause death or other grievous permanent injuries.
A few years ago, I became so weakened after surgery that I coud not walk.
I have not recovered full strength for almost 5 years.
Failure to fight aggressively can cause your own death,
for the criminal 's protection because government desires to protect him.

Quote:

If you use an unregistered gun, the penalty is much steeper.

U and your countrymen might need your guns to keep your government in line.
What if it becomes abusive?
What if it declares an indefinite moratorium on elections ?
Registering a gun HELPS your government, at your expense.
If your guns are registered, then that tells government where to go
if it decides to ROB u of your guns.

Quote:

To answer your initial question, while there is no doubt it is best practice
to be prepared for any and all situations, the reality is... it is nearly impossible.

With that in mind, when a politician is running for election and begging for your vote,
u owe it to yourself to demand to know whether his loyalty will be to YOU or to the government ??
Vote for politicians who will represent YOU not the government.

Remember: the relationship between government and the citizen is one of ADVERSITY.

Quote:

When or if anyone is ever in any situation that they feel could
possibly be dangerous, the best advice is always to put as much
space between you and the trouble. No matter how well
prepared you are, the element of surprise is always the best advantage.
And...
The more distance you can put between you and an attacker,
the more time you will have to prepare and react to a dangerous situation. Gun or not.

That is not in question.

3 ) Correct me if I am rong, but u advocate USURPATION of power to reduce crime;
that government shoud overthrow the Constitution that constitutes it and take over America.
Given a choice: I 'll choose the criminals in preference to THAT.

in a situation of predatory violence there is a contest of power
between the predators and their victims. WHO -- which side -- will preponderate ?
The pro-freedom side supports the victims and opposes discrimination as to who can legally defend his life,
whereas in contradistinction, the politically correct side desires those victims to be helpless so as not to harm
the disadvantaged minority groups that prey upon them.

When you get into gun ownership Dave,
I begin to see a streak of libertarianism in your posts. Are you a libertarian?