There isn't much in this world that's more cowardly than shooting another human being.
So the home invader that shoots you is more cowardly than the "man" that doesn't want to defend self, family, and house but instead sneaks out the back door or begs for mercy on his knees, hoping the wife and kids aren't abused? Haha, I don't think so!
It is not a matter of being "manly." It is a matter of self-defense, which is a natural right.
I support "stand your ground" laws, and wish more states had them. By far and away, most home invaders are men, and a pump-action 12-gauge levels the playing field immediately.
A 12 gauge is not an ideal "home defense" weapon. Even if you hit your target, there's a pretty good chance projectiles will pass through walls. A short-barelled .410 with a buckshot load is much better.
If "manliness" enters your calculations for whether or not you should run or kill another human being, you shouldn't own a gun. There isn't much in this world that's more cowardly than shooting another human being.
Hon, "manliness" never enters my calculations! It is the simple equation of being the hunter or the hunted. Someone unlawfully in my house is a threat to me, my family, and my property. I would have no qualms protecting any one of them. I was taught on the ranch at an early age to use and respect firearms, just like my brother. I was brought up in a culture of guns for hunting, guns for killing varmints, and guns for protection.
If given the opportunity, I would probably blow the assailant's leg off, or aim for the groin. If the shot was not fatal, it would certainly incapacitate. If I am fortunate enough to have multiple targets, I am skilled enough to take them out.
I plan ahead.
Living in the UK... I find this convo totally alien. Almost barbaric. Isn't it a fact that having a gun in the house is more likely to be used to injure a family member than not? I'm sure I read that stat somewhere. Also, the amount of 'accidental' firearm injuries and deaths on the gun-holders children in the home is alarming. Just get better burglar alarms and locks.
Living in the UK... I find this convo totally alien. Almost barbaric. Isn't it a fact that having a gun in the house is more likely to be used to injure a family member than not? I'm sure I read that stat somewhere. Also, the amount of 'accidental' firearm injuries and deaths on the gun-holders children in the home is alarming. Just get better burglar alarms and locks.
Well, people make arguments, and people make counter arguments. Sometimes there is more to things than what appears on the surface. People on the "gun" side have been represented a bit on these threads, so that's their arguments that you can check out. They may turn out wrong, but I think it's much better to wade through counter arguments to one's position than to simply assume their position because it looks good on the surface.
Stats of course are a good way to approach the issue, although there is always the question of "why are the stats the way they are?" After all, we would agree that the stat of more male world chess champions than female world chess champions has more to it than a hasty explanation like "Men have better chess genes than women," which after all was probably a very common, uncontroversial opinion for much of history. As Irontiger implied earlier I think, even if the stats in Europe generally work well with no guns, that doesn't mean a transition to anti gun laws is a good idea for a place not used to them, because we don't know how people might react to a sudden change.
"If "manliness" enters your calculations for whether or not you should run or kill another human being, you shouldn't own a gun. There isn't much in this world that's more cowardly than shooting another human being."
Hmm... cowardly to overpower the enemy easily? I don't know, I think something is only heroic if the risk taken had a purpose; if not it's closer to stupid. If a person had no weapon and approached their enemy rather than run away, that may be heroic. But if the person had a weapon and just decided to attack the enemy without one instead, I'd just say that's stupid. You'd basically have to be a masochist to do that.
Might be true, but still sounds like BS to me. And even if it were true, I suspect you have more chance to die from a mosquito sting that from a booby-trapped leaf.
BTW, why you would grow such funny plants in the forest when you can rent a hangar and buy UV lamps for a fraction of the profit is beyond me, but I am not so familiar with that business.
Apparently you aren't familiar with the steps these Mexican drug cartels go to in order to protect their cash crops.
Let's see, in the past 5 years I have heard the following happening to your weekend hiker or hunter, all taking place within 100 square miles inside my county on national forest land:
One hunter accidentally walked into a grow site. One of the cartel growers spotted him and discharged 3 rounds over his head with an AK-47. This man was lucky - They allowed him to leave. He reported it to our office, and we went in and ripped up the site, utilizing SWAT and the Marijuania Eradication Unit.
Not a week later, a hiker was walking through the forest when he began to smell something funny. He paused, and looking off the side of the trail, he spotted the plants - Right at that moment one of the growers fired an arrow over the man's head, hitting a tree directly behind him. He ran from the area and once again, SWAT and ERAD moved in and destroyed the site.
A month later, one of our helicopter reconnaissance units spotted a large grow. SWAT moved in and one of the growers pulled (rather stupidly) an empty shotgun on the deputies. He was drilled full of holes for his efforts. This man was linked directly to one of the top Mexican drug cartels, and they grow exclusively in the Emerald Triangle. Sadly, a lot of the growers don't have a choice - The cartels abduct a family and force the father/husband to come here to grow for them or they will kill their loved ones. They issue them weapons and tell them that if they mess up, their family is going to be killed. In the case of this particular grow, we filled two garbage trucks with the plants we pulled.
Common things our SWAT unit now routinely sweeps for at every grow site: Booby trapped plants, involving homemade grenades or other improvided explosive devises, attached to the root of the plant. When we go in we are trained to look for wires before we pull the plant up.
Rattlesnakes, though a rare booby trap, have been encountered. They cut the rattle off and hang it from a tree at the perimeter of the grow. It's a temporary booby trap because the snake eventually dies, but it's been encountered in recent grow seasons.
Rusty fish hooks are also hung in plants, so when we go to grab the plant, we get stuck (better hope you're tetinus shot is up to date)
And then, Toe poppers: They take a 12 guage shotgun shell and bury it over a board with a nail in it, so when you step on it the primer hits the nail.
Still think I am BSing you?
These same people like to take revenge on the folks tearing down their dangerous (and often environmentally damaging) grows. We also have to haul out all their trash and the car batteries and other chemicals they would leave behind. Hence a gun in every room and a head on a swivel.
That's not nuts, that's common sense.
As for Babytigrrr's comment asking if it is a fact that having a gun in the house is more likely to injure a family member than not, that is completely false. Perhaps because the UK bans most guns she has this perception. Responsible gun owners who have children in the house lock their guns up so children cannot access them. Buy a pistol in the United States and it comes with a free gun cable lock. Most rifles now have a locking mechanism on their safeties. Gun accidents have dropped drastically since such free gun lock programs have started, and educational materials have taught people with children in the house to lock their guns and store ammo seperately, as well as instructing other adults in the household on proper handling. It's the propoganda of the anti-gun crowd who wants you to think otherwise, but the facts are there for anyone to hop onto Google and look up.
As for her saying get better burglar alarms and locks, think of it this way: Most households with such systems or who call 911 can expect a response time averaging 15 minutes or more (In my case over an hour because I live in a remote area). So what are you going to do in that best case scenario of 15 minutes while you have an armed, drug addled criminal in your home and you are defenseless and must rely on the police to show up to save you? Your face is probably going to be appearing in the newspaper, a casualty that didn't have to be if only you had taken the steps to insure your right to self defense.
It is not a matter of being "manly." It is a matter of self-defense, which is a natural right.
I support "stand your ground" laws, and wish more states had them. By far and away, most home invaders are men, and a pump-action 12-gauge levels the playing field immediately.
A 12 gauge is not an ideal "home defense" weapon. Even if you hit your target, there's a pretty good chance projectiles will pass through walls. A short-barelled .410 with a buckshot load is much better.
If "manliness" enters your calculations for whether or not you should run or kill another human being, you shouldn't own a gun. There isn't much in this world that's more cowardly than shooting another human being.
Hon, "manliness" never enters my calculations! It is the simple equation of being the hunter or the hunted. Someone unlawfully in my house is a threat to me, my family, and my property. I would have no qualms protecting any one of them. I was taught on the ranch at an early age to use and respect firearms, just like my brother. I was brought up in a culture of guns for hunting, guns for killing varmints, and guns for protection.
If given the opportunity, I would probably blow the assailant's leg off, or aim for the groin. If the shot was not fatal, it would certainly incapacitate. If I am fortunate enough to have multiple targets, I am skilled enough to take them out.
I plan ahead.
In this day and age of litigation, concealed carry instructors will tell you that if you need to pull a gun to defend yourself or your family you need A) Absolute proof of immediate threat to you or your loved ones and B) You better make sure you kill them, and not merely maim them as you just suggested, because they can turn around and sue you, even though they broke the law and broke into your home and threatened you with deadly intention.
Kind of like how, if a burglar cuts his hand while breaking a window to enter your home, he can, as ridiculous as this sounds, come back and sue you for it. It's happened, and ambulance chasing lawyers have no qualms in going after you for their cut of the criminal's lawsuit winnings.
To: NK
Remember your tutorial to me on hypothermia ?....Once again, TY.
I visited the emerald /\ Thanksgiving weekend a few years ago (didn't know it was called that until now). My relatives and I drove all a'O there !....We saw Paul and Blue Babe, elk herds, the Redwoods....it was unforgettable. Then we drove the Trinity Forest road (161 ?) to Redding then up to Mount Shasta. It's one of the most beautiful and scenic places on the Mainland. Oh !....Kinda funny there's a town called Weed........
Glad you enjoyed the area! 
Northern California and Southern Oregon offer a lot of beauty, despite the dangers I've been talking about regarding the Emerald Triangle.
As for the city of Weed, they were one of the first cities to go after Marijuana legalization - Ironic, huh? lol
Might be true, but still sounds like BS to me. And even if it were true, I suspect you have more chance to die from a mosquito sting that from a booby-trapped leaf.
BTW, why you would grow such funny plants in the forest when you can rent a hangar and buy UV lamps for a fraction of the profit is beyond me, but I am not so familiar with that business.
Marihauna grows are done deep in forests for several good reasons. There are very few people around so they are less likely to be spotted. No one will smell it walking by. The crop is also less likely to be stolen. It's inexpensive. Renting a hanger and paying for the massive amounts of electricity, water, and equipment needed to sustain a commercail grow operation costs a lot of money. It's cheaper to divert a forest stream and let the sunshine feed the plants.
If given the opportunity, I would probably blow the assailant's leg off, or aim for the groin. If the shot was not fatal, it would certainly incapacitate. If I am fortunate enough to have multiple targets, I am skilled enough to take them out.
I plan ahead.
The idea that anyone, even a highly trained shooter, would be able to target a leg or groin during a life and death armed incident is just plain laughable. In any conceal and carry or self-defense instructional course they will always tell you to aim for the torso. You saying something so absurd makes me think you don't know as much about guns as you claim.
Might be true, but still sounds like BS to me. And even if it were true, I suspect you have more chance to die from a mosquito sting that from a booby-trapped leaf.
BTW, why you would grow such funny plants in the forest when you can rent a hangar and buy UV lamps for a fraction of the profit is beyond me, but I am not so familiar with that business.
Marihauna grows are done deep in forests for several good reasons. There are very few people around so they are less likely to be spotted. No one will smell it walking by. The crop is also less likely to be stolen. It's inexpensive. Renting a hanger and paying for the massive amounts of electricity, water, and equipment needed to sustain a commercail grow operation costs a lot of money. It's cheaper to divert a forest stream and let the sunshine feed the plants.
Exactly. They go deep into the woods off the beaten path. Unfortunately for them, our Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) cameras on the helicopters make even the most well concealed grow stick out like a sore thumb. We fly over, snap photos, record the location with GPS, and before they can harvest we swoop in and destroy their money crop and apprehend anyone who didn't manage to run fast enough. 
If given the opportunity, I would probably blow the assailant's leg off, or aim for the groin. If the shot was not fatal, it would certainly incapacitate. If I am fortunate enough to have multiple targets, I am skilled enough to take them out.
I plan ahead.
The idea that anyone, even a highly trained shooter, would be able to target a leg or groin during a life and death armed incident is just plain laughable. In any conceal and carry or self-defense instructional course they will always tell you to aim for the torso. You saying something so absurd makes me think you don't know as much about guns as you claim.
Apparenly JamieDelarosa has never taken an armed self defense course in his life. His claim of being skilled is laughable at best given his assertations on the subject of armed defense, and shooting someone in the leg or groin is just going to get him sued when the person gets out of the hospital. He'll be in for a big surprise when he realizes that in most armed close encounters by civilians it's more of a "aim for center mass and hope you connect given all the adrenaline coursing through your veins" proposition.
If you plan ahead, why haven't you taken courses to learn just how foolish your comments about being able to "blow the assailants leg off" (are you firing a rocket propelled grenade at him?) really are.
Jamie, I'll take this one. 1st let me clear the ice by saying that Jamie is female. 2nd, even thow I agree with Normadic Knight about aiming for "center mass", class room instruction does not allways translate out in the field. 3rd. With the type of weapon she described, chanses are even Stevie Wonder should be able to operate on adrenaline. Stay calm, and hold your breath when pulling the trigger, assuming you have both hands ON the weapon. 4th. There is a mojor artery in the inner thigh. When that ruptures, if a tournaquet isn't applied swifly, a person could bleed to death within 15 mins. 5th. My own opinion is should you ever find yourself in a dangerous situation in your own home, blow the S.O.B. away by any means, and take your chances with the court. (edit), anybody should take a self defense course when ever possible.
If I'm ever in a gun dual I plan to just shoot my oponents hat off like Lee Van Cleef.
When he burst through the door, everyone knew instantly and shouted --
"Watch Out, That Kid has a Death Ray..."
All adults were soon toast.
Ronald, the criticism is fair. I have not taken an armed self-defense class. I learned to shoot by killing things.
I'm not a soldier and I was never in law enforcement. But I still keep three shotguns and a sporting rifle in the house. No handguns. I have gotten rid an inherited deer rifle (.30-06) because it was getting no use.
I had a cheap Chinese-made SKS for a while, but did not like it. The gun laws in California have become onerous. I don't register anything. I pay for ammunition in cash.
There is an old military adage: "The threat is greater than the execution." One round fired in self-defense would likely send the criminals scurrying.
I am a very unlikely target for anything. No enemies. A secure, well-kept residence. Lighted. A dog. Nothing ostentatious to suggest there is a bunch worth stealing. It is unlikely that I would ever confront a well-trained thief.
I have a natural right to use deadly force, if needs be. I hope it never comes to that.
Yes but, especially since you are in California, the litigation capital of the world where you can sue for breathing in someone's fart, if you do have to exercise your right to self defense, you dont aim to maim, you aim to kill, otherwise your attacker can track down any scum bag lawyer with a price low enough to allow them to sue you for all you have.
In a close quarter battle, especially when it involves an untrained shooter, adrenaline can make your shots go wild. There have been point blank shootings, even ones involving police, where each person emptied an entire clip at the other and didn't make contact. A famous one is an altercation on an interstate highway in Texas where both the police officer and the two assailants fired at each other at POINT BLANK range and the officer didn't even hit the van that the two assailants were standing in front of. The assailants didn't hit the officer, either.
Oh, and my apologies for calling you a "he", it's just a natural thing to type.
I'd highly recommend a handgun, but in the Socialist Republic of California they don't want you to have one, so obtaining one AND a concealed handgun license is next to impossible. Oregon would be a better state to live in if you value your Constitutional rights. 
Yes but, especially since you are in California, the litigation capital of the world where you can sue for breathing in someone's fart, if you do have to exercise your right to self defense, you dont aim to maim, you aim to kill, otherwise your attacker can track down any scum bag lawyer with a price low enough to allow them to sue you for all you have.
In a close quarter battle, especially when it involves an untrained shooter, adrenaline can make your shots go wild. There have been point blank shootings, even ones involving police, where each person emptied an entire clip at the other and didn't make contact. A famous one is an altercation on an interstate highway in Texas where both the police officer and the two assailants fired at each other at POINT BLANK range and the officer didn't even hit the van that the two assailants were standing in front of. The assailants didn't hit the officer, either.
Oh, and my apologies for calling you a "he", it's just a natural thing to type.
I'd highly recommend a handgun, but in the Socialist Republic of California they don't want you to have one, so obtaining one AND a concealed handgun license is next to impossible. Oregon would be a better state to live in if you value your Constitutional rights.
I understand your point and respect your opinion. We can not legally open carry in this state any longer.
Might be true, but still sounds like BS to me. And even if it were true, I suspect you have more chance to die from a mosquito sting that from a booby-trapped leaf.
BTW, why you would grow such funny plants in the forest when you can rent a hangar and buy UV lamps for a fraction of the profit is beyond me, but I am not so familiar with that business.