• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Honest question for forum gun owners/CCW holders...now with nickel plated pole!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Have you ever used a firearm to prevent a crime?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I like Schneiderguy's sack

  • Guns are bad mkay

Results are only viewable after voting.
To be 100% honest regarding the whole gun debate I'm apathetic to it. I think anti-gun people are too caught up in the potential danger to see the benefit, but on the other side I think a lot of pro-gun people are afraid that any laws regardless of how benign are an attempt to slowly chip away peoples rights.
 
I own a gun, and I'm going to own more. I'm going to get a CHL once I get another gun, because my P95's magazine release makes it unsuitable to carry (it keeps getting caught on my and dropping the mag as I draw).


I've never shot anyone, and I hope to God I never have to. I HAVE shot an opossum with a high-powered pellet gun (killed it) that was attacking the cats and was going to shoot a vicious dog that was prowling the yard.
 
schneiderguy said:
Aren't you against gun ownership by private citizens? :hmm::hmm:
Click to expand...

Absolutely I am, If there was somewhere off my property I could store it, I would or If I could hire a gun when I go shooting I would. I don't keep ammo for it as I don't believe I should have the right to a loaded gun.

nick1985 said:
I threw up the alley-oop, shneiderguy slams it down.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I don't know what this means...?
 
HAL9000 said:
Aren't they the same things, If you are defending yourself, then you are defending yourself against a crime...?
Click to expand...


Not quite.

As you know - Specific laws vary, depending on where you live. And an intelligent/responsible owner will be educated as to what is applicable in his/her environment. But a reasonable example as to why the two are not always the same thing is: I am allowed to defend my home and family/guests who are in my home against criminal intruders. I am *not* allowed to go to my neighbor's home if I suspect someone broke into it. Rather, I must call the Police.
 
Scotteq said:
Not quite.

As you know - Specific laws vary, depending on where you live. And an intelligent/responsible owner will be educated as to what is applicable in his/her environment. But a reasonable example as to why the two are not always the same thing is: I am allowed to defend my home and family/guests who are in my home against criminal intruders. I am *not* allowed to go to my neighbor's home if I suspect someone broke into it. Rather, I must call the Police.
Click to expand...

Sure but are there ever times when defending yourself is not preventing a crime, as the guy I quoted previous implies?

I'm not arguing that stopping a crime is always defending yourself, just that defending yourself is always stopping a crime. I.e. you can't use a gun to defend yourself without stopping a crime.
 
Last edited:
No, I never have. Hope I never will.

IF, I had bought my gun before that guy broke into my house and I were to carry it as much as do now it probably would have saved me a bunch of broken furniture, a carpet soaked with my blood, a trip to the emergency ward, and I wouldn't have this souvenir of a crease in my skull.
 
HAL9000 said:
Sure but are there ever times when defending yourself is not preventing a crime, as the guy I quoted previous implies?
Click to expand...


JDMN will have to answer for himself on that, but I read his answer in a similar context to the example I gave. i.e. He could excercise the option to defend himself, but would not engage in a Police~like act to intervene on someone else's behalf.

Specific to your example: You are correct - You would be defending yourself against a crime.



To add further context: Where I live, Carry permits are almost never issued to anyone who is not already a Police Officer, or required by their employment (Armored Car people, etc) to carry a weapon in public. A Police Officer would obviously be duty bound to interfere. But anyone else would be breaking the law by attempting to do so.

Other jurisdictions have different laws, though I am not aware of any that would go so far as to require, or even ask, a carrying citizen to interfere in a crime in progress.
 
HAL9000 said:
Absolutely I am, If there was somewhere off my property I could store it, I would or If I could hire a gun when I go shooting I would. I don't keep ammo for it as I don't believe I should have the right to a loaded gun.
Click to expand...

So you don't support private ownership of guns but you own a gun.

:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

What kind of shotgun? :awe:
 
Scotteq said:
JDMN will have to answer for himself on that, but I read his answer in a similar context to the example I gave. i.e. He could excercise the option to defend himself, but would not engage in a Police~like act to intervene on someone else's behalf.

Specific to your example: You are correct - You would be defending yourself against a crime.



To add further context: Where I live, Carry permits are almost never issued to anyone who is not already a Police Officer, or required by their employment (Armored Car people, etc) to carry a weapon in public. A Police Officer would obviously be duty bound to interfere. But anyone else would be breaking the law by attempting to do so.

Other jurisdictions have different laws, though I am not aware of any that would go so far as to require, or even ask, a carrying citizen to interfere in a crime in progress.
Click to expand...

Sorry not that's not the point I was making, though I can see where your coming from.

My issue was with the idea that JDMN had defended himself with a weapon but not stopped a crime, when you are by definition defending yourself against a crime you can't defend yourself without stopping a crime. Thus saying that I defended myself but didn't stop a crime either implies a failed defence attempt (rendering the statement null) or stopping a crime (making the statement an oxymoron)
 
HAL9000 said:
Sorry not that's not the point I was making, though I can see where your coming from.

My issue was with the idea that JDMN had defended himself with a weapon but not stopped a crime, when you are by definition defending yourself against a crime you can't defend yourself without stopping a crime. Thus saying that I defended myself but didn't stop a crime either implies a failed defence attempt (rendering the statement null) or stopping a crime (making the statement an oxymoron)
Click to expand...



/understood

And, as I said earlier, your scenario would be correct in a personal context.
 
zinfamous said:
yes, I am completely certain that in this this case, and in this case only in the history of statistical measurement, that correlation absolutely = causation.
Click to expand...

Look through all the places that have enacated conceal or open carry and you will see crime rates drop. And amazingly, places like DC, Chicago, ect where guns are prohibited, crime is through the roof.

More guns means less crime, because crooks don't want to get shot.

As for me, I had some douche try and rob me while I was at an ATM. I saw him coming up in the reflection of the glass, and turned to face him and pulled my gun. He took off faster than Rosie O'Donnel moving towards a buffet line.
The kicker was the police station was across the street.
 
Scotteq said:
JDMN will have to answer for himself on that, but I read his answer in a similar context to the example I gave. i.e. He could excercise the option to defend himself, but would not engage in a Police~like act to intervene on someone else's behalf.

Specific to your example: You are correct - You would be defending yourself against a crime.



To add further context: Where I live, Carry permits are almost never issued to anyone who is not already a Police Officer, or required by their employment (Armored Car people, etc) to carry a weapon in public. A Police Officer would obviously be duty bound to interfere. But anyone else would be breaking the law by attempting to do so.

Other jurisdictions have different laws, though I am not aware of any that would go so far as to require, or even ask, a carrying citizen to interfere in a crime in progress.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong if you think a police officer is duty bound to interfer and save you. They are under no legal obligation to put their neck on the line for someone. They could be terminated from their department, but they don't have to risk their life for anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top