Or how quickly it CAN change if everyone is armed to the teeth.
And I've had to deal with plenty of violence, but nobody was armed with a gun, and nobody died.
In any case it's a pointless argument now. America is a gun culture, that's just how it is. I'm assuming the majority of it's citizens want it that way, so be it. Not my country, not my business.
...its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".
They probably made a lot of mistakes when confronted with (presumably) a big difference in firepower. That might have helped. Anyway, good on him.Is the home owner's name Frank Castle?
Even with the advantage of an AK and surprise, taking on five armed shit-bags and walking away leaving them all on the field is fucking elite level skills
If the guy was older, I would have suspected he'd had Military, LE or Government training/service.
Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you come in one way and I have the option to go out another way, shouldn't I do that? But on the other hand, if you confront me I am within my rights to end you. Seems about right to me.Well I should clarify. We do have self defence, but your life has to be imminently in danger. So for example, if a Canadian homeowner is asleep in their bedroom and an intruder comes into his room brandishing a weapon then the homeowner can defend himself. But in a different scenario where the homeowner can hear an intruder somewhere in the house he can’t just go and hunt them down with a weapon. If there’s an option to escape and call the police that’s what’s expected.
Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you come in one way and I have the option to go out another way, shouldn't I do that? But on the other hand, if you confront me I am within my rights to end you. Seems about right to me.
If you do a home invasion you deserve whatever you get
If I was a criminal with a gun and you were unarmed I'd just steal your stuff and let you live. If I was a criminal with a gun and I saw you had a gun I'd shoot to kill immediately upon sight. Does the gun really make you safer? Maybe I would avoid robbing your house if I knew you were armed but I think most burglars would assume homeowners probably have a gun somewhere
It’s not a Trudeau thing. Specifically what I meant was that we don’t have Castle doctrine in Canada. You’re not allowed to harm a home invader. You’re legally obliged to flee your own home.
Which one? Like the American revolution? Because that worked out pretty well for us yanks over here.Just Google "revolution."
Going to need pics(of the women, not the beer).
Yes.
The homeowner in question in this thread is objectively safer because of his gun ownership.
Combat is a fluid thing. You're trying to divide the stages of human combat into these neat little boxes. Since you're on a forum dedicated to mixed martial arts, I really shouldn't have to take that much time explaining to you how that's not true at all.
Lived in America my whole life, lived in texas for 10+ years. Never heard a gunshot, never saw a gun in public outside of police officers, never knew someone who was involved in gun violence. And was probably regularly surrounded by people with guns, and it wasn't part of my personal experience even once. Always felt safe, and don't own a gun.America is awesome except for the gun culture.
I've had plenty of opportunities to move there for business, but I'm not interested in moving to a country where you're grateful you're allowed to own a damned assault rifle to defend yourself. I've always felt safe in my country, always, and at fifty I've never known anyone who has come to a violent end. I would never feel safe in a country where so many people are armed.
I appreciate that many of you feel safer with guns, and the truth is you're probably right considering how armed you already are. I'm just happy to live somewhere different, somewhere exponentially safer.
Which one? Like the American revolution? Because that worked out pretty well for us yanks over here.
If you just let me punch you once I’d leave you alone after but if you tried to punch me back I would deflect your strike and immediately counter with a liver strike, chop kick to your knee and then rear naked choke you until dead.
So is hitting me back really a good idea after all?
When did “see google” become a legitimate way to outline a point you were trying to make?So you Googled "revolution" and couldn't find a single one where a heavily armed populace turned into a really bad thing?
Lived in America my whole life, lived in texas for 10+ years. Never heard a gunshot, never saw a gun in public outside of police officers, never knew someone who was involved in gun violence. And was probably regularly surrounded by people with guns, and it wasn't part of my personal experience even once. Always felt safe, and don't own a gun.
It's interesting though to see people who think there is a "gun culture" in America and especially Texas when I was born there and lived there for over a decade and haven't had one personal experience with guns outside of shooting them on a range in boy scouts, having maybe one friend who I remember purchased one, or seeing police with them.
Anecdotal, but still facts.