Exactly my point. So why are you assuming it for all those who were slaughtered?Big58cal wrote:No offense Ben, but you don't know me or know what I've been through. Neither you nor I (or anyone else for that matter) should ever assume anything about anyone.CanuckBen wrote:Let me ask you this. Have you ever shot someone in a self-defence situation? Have you every shot someone defending your store, truck or piece of property?
If you have not, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that you would be able to sqeeze the trigger and take someone's life, or in your example, scumbags.
Here in Canada the terms of the law are not the same as in the US so there really isn’t any point of discussion. It will never happen up here. There is no right to bare arms. If I shoot someone with one of my firearms in my house I can guarantee you that it won’t be a open & shut case. That is just the way it is. There is NO WAY that a complete reversal would go smoothly as it is simply not at the center of our culture.Big58cal wrote:With that being said, no, I have never shot anyone in a self defense situation. I have however have had a shotgun out pointed at the front door of my house at some scumbags that were trying to break in. I wasn't about to hesitate on pulling the trigger if that door had opened. It's amazing how quiet it gets after a pump shotgun is racked. That is a pretty well universally recognized sound that something bad is about ready to happen if things don't change.
Big58cal wrote:To add to this, I spent several years in law enforcement and have had to draw my gun a few times on people. I didn't ever want to shoot anyone (and still don't), but given the option of either them or me, I know which I'm going to choose.
I would say that this is a completely different angle all together.
Again there is the assumption that they can, but moving past that. Going back to your 1% as being acceptable (“even if it was only”), do you still feel that it would have been an effective deterrent to the actual cause of these horrendous killings??Big58cal wrote: Now, back to the email......... The thing to remember and look at in all of those instances listed are that AFTER some kind of registration and confiscation scheme was implemented, people were systematically slaughtered because they had no way to defend themselves.
What kind of gun controlled were these? Gun controlled as in having no possibility of owning any types of firearms all together, or gun control as say as what we have here in Canada, which isn’t a big deal at all. I’m intrigue by it so I surely will be looking it up.
And also, wouldn’t getting to the root of those killings be key to understanding this as well? You’ll quickly find that religion, bigotry, racism, etc – religion being first in line – will be x100 more responsible for those killing than the population being under some form of gun controlled.
I as well.. The problem is, can we “assume” that 99% of the population (given the idea that right to bare arms is given to everyone) will know what how to use them, when to use them, make the right decision at the right time?Big58cal wrote: The point is, I would rather have a firearm and a fighting chance to save my life than to be a defenseless victim. I may still end up going down, but it won't be without a fight, I can guarantee you that!
You were a police officer. Do you really believe that everyone should be allowed to have firearms? Because you can’t knit pick as to who can and who cannot. That’d be gun control right.
