What did only watch the last four seconds.
Since the first two sprays are clearly all over dudes face.
I don’t really care what you believe, I have enough experience to know better than to.trust it to.stop anyone.
Here’s what police have to say about it
Your going to learn that OC will not work on everyone. I have heard up towards 30% of the population are not affected by it. Then you have those who are hyped on on drugs and just won’t feel the affects. If someone is “goal oriented” and get’s sprayed, he/she is still going to come after you. If he/she is ****ed off enough, OC will not stop them. Don’t ever depend on OC, it’s a tool to use but never put 100% faith into it.
But go ahead and put your faith in TV personalities
Wrong. Confrontations end without a fatality, even when both parties have guns, on a regular basis.
And prime numbers occur on the portion of the number line between 10,000,000 and 11,000,000 on a regular basis.
Problem is there are no clear numbers, depending in who you ask somewhere between 600 and 2.5 million people yearly use a gun for self defense.
200,000 seemed to be the more common number.
With less than 1 percent of those actually resulting in a homicide
Seems whether you are the defender or offender the most common use is threat and intimidation.
Personally I don’t really feel the need to justify ownership through self defense anyhow.
Every one I’ve owned has been primarily for sporting, hunting, or muskrat control.
Never been a handgun fan (which btw are involved in some 80 percent of all firearm homicides)
Always found a shotgun the most versatile ( especially lever action .410)
But eh, that’s me.
If someone robs your home, whether you are there or not, you can call the police, and they will take a report, and maybe, if the thief is really stupid and leaves evidence where the cops are tripping over it and can’t ignore it anymore, maybe he’ll be caught.
LEO takes murder a bit more seriously, and will actually expend some resources on trying to catch a murderer.
The penalties are generally much higher for murder than theft as well. Most thieves will only result to violence if they are threatened themselves. Now, of course, they are in the wrong in the first place, so they don’t have a “right” to self defense, but that doesn’t mean that they will not defend themselves, and rights or not, that will have a good chance of you ending up dead.
I am only wrong in that statement because you have chosen to take it out of the context it is in. Correct, that statement by itself is not accurate, but you have shown no particular skill in taking a phrase out of its context, and showed how that phrase out of its context is inaccurate, when, in the context that it was put in until you chose to take it out, it is absolutely correct.
Please try to pay attention to the words that are around the words that you choose to reply to, as otherwise, it makes your arguments very easy to demolish, as it just needs to be put back into context to completely refute whatever point you were trying to score.
Not always a rule, but a basic guideline that should help you out a bit, if you have to put an ellipsis on either end, meaning that you aren’t even quoting a complete sentence, then you are likely distorting the meaning. You certainly wouldn’t want to do that, as people may start to get the impression that you do it on purpose.
Sure, confrontations do, bar fights or road rage incidents, but do home invasions, like we are discussing in this thread? A criminal is in your home and has a gun, and has it pointed at you. You have a gun, and are attempting to point it at them.
In what world does neither of you pull the trigger?
Even in confrontations where both parties are armed with a gun, and one or both parties pull the trigger, fatalities are not some sort of automatic result. Guns misfire, shots miss, or people survive their gunshot wounds. It happens regularly. You were wrong, just admit it and move on.
yes for example if your name is Greedo you can shoot someone from across the table and miss.
I know this is GD, but I am so curious to hear about this.
You see they are already breaking the law, and what make you think they are going follow any law? Yea they might take you stuff and leave, or they might just shoot you because they figure a dead witness is far better then one who’s alive. They could of course decide to take your daughter, you see you cannot guarantee you’ll be standing no matter what.
Why do people think that people who have proven they won’t follow the law will follow any of them? If they followed the law they wouldn’t be breaking into your home or trying to rob you. You want to face them with nothing and be at their mercy.
If I knew for certain that such a criminal was going to break into my house, then I would get a gun. But that is far from certain. For that to happen, it would require these things:
- A criminal to pick my house and
- Break in when we’re home and
- Not flee when he realizes dogs are in the house and
- Not flee when he realizes people are inside.
Just the chances of #1 are very small. Even if #1 happens, #2, 3 and 4 would also have to happen. Certainly they can, and do to some people, but the chances it will happen to me is very, very small. It’s not worth it to me to get a gun and then deal with the associated hassles and risks that brings. In the slim chance that a criminal comes in and means harm I’m sure I’ll regret that decision, but chances are I’ll never be put in that position.
Oh, so what you are saying is that there is a chance that one or both survive the encounter. That doesn’t contradict anything I said, which would be obvious to you if you actually read whole posts, rather than taking phrases out of context and pretending that they are representative of the post.
you should not e that the post that I was responding to was specifically saying that you will be dead if you try to defend yourself with a frying pan or a bat or whatever. Unfortunately, you chose to miss that bit of context as well, so you think that my statement exists in a vacuum, as opposed to responding to someone who was claiming that if you try to defend yourself with a baseball bat, you will be dead.
Why don’t you correct him on how the gun can misfire or miss or you could survive the gunshot wound, rather than trying to “correct” me, when he is the one that made the claim, and I am only the one responding to it.
This is why context is important. You really should learn to pay attention to it, to avoid making these sorts of pretty embarrassing missteps, where you think that you are railing on me, but you are actually beating up on one of your allies.
I know people that smoke weed. They are already breaking the law, so that means that they are no different from rapists and murders?
You do realize that there are different penalties for breaking different laws, right? And you do realize that criminals, even as dehumanized as you try to make them, are also not so stpud to not know that there are different penalties for breaking different laws.
There is also the fact that people have consciences as well, and that conscience may not mind them picking up a few unattended items, but would bother them for killing someone.
I just saw someone speeding. OMG!!! they were breaking the law, next thing I know, I’m going to be facing them and I’ll be at their mercy!
Pure paranoia like that’s not healthy.
#1 1:36
#2 about 1/4th of all break-ins.
#3 only factors in prior to number 1
#4 same as #2
#5…attack and injure you 1/4 of #2
So , pretty small about, 1:600 overall
You can call it 1:1800 bc of the dogs
While single women with children, blacks, American Indian and Alaskan natives, the elderly, renters, and the poor can call it closer to 1:200
Assuming only one of those factors about them is true.
The OP is loaded with the assumption that this is a serious problem that arises if we take his guns away. In (developed world) societies where guns are much less prevalent, I’m not aware of people living in constant fear of home invasion and worrying about how to solve this terrible problem.
So it’s seems to me that the OP first has a burden to provide some evidence that coming to harm from home invasion is a serious risk at all; and also some evidence of how the risk (if significant at all) is correlated with homeowner gun ownership and the total prevalence of gun ownership in a society.
Absent that, I don’t grant the premise that there exists any problem in need of a solution. One might as well ask how to defend yourself against gorilla attacks if your guns are taken away.
Of course 50 percent of all dog bite victims are children. 1 million more reported bites then burglaries, 5 times as many bites as burglaries with someone at home
Most likely place of attack is in their own home.
Far more bites requiring hospital treatment than even minor injuries in home invasions.
So having the dogs is statistically far more likely to result in serious injury than a firearm or burglary Despite far higher numbers of guns than dogs in America
But , that’s a risk you are willing to take and presumably properly manage.
To each his own.
Just a real quick, do you know what “serious” injury means? It does not mean that you went to the hospital. People go to the hospital for dog bites because they are told that you should go to the hospital for dog bites, not because the dog bite was a serious injury.
By serious injury I was referring to the number which require hospitalization.
From the 800,000 that require medical treatment only 334,000 require hospital treatment.
While In the case of crime statistics serious injury is anything requiring more than EMT examination
Though handguns are the statistical equivalent of pit bulls and Rottweilers.
Since they account for 75 percent of this.
While handguns account for 80 percent of firearms injuries.
In summation, get a labrador and a shotgun.
Train one and limit access to the other and you’re good to go.
Man, antis are all the same and antis never change. It’s all about “ew, guns!” If they gave a wet shit about really saving lives there is such a plentitude of low hanging fruit that it boggles the imagination.