Where's your Guns now?!?
Tyaeda
Published
06/28/2013
I'm not going to sit here and debate the American Constitution, or background checks, or any of that shit. I'm here to talk about what seems to be the number one reason why Americans purchase firearms, aside from hunting.
Personal protection. It seems to be the popular consensus, that if you own a firearm, and are trained to use it, that you and your family will live a rape, theft, and invasion free life. Yeah, it's true, the cops can't always get there in time, but is that reason enough to take the law into your own hands?
And that's exactly what it is. When you purchase a gun, and prepare yourself to use it if you have to, you are taking on a huge responsibility. The moment you point that firearm at a would-be intruder, you become the cops, the jury, and may be faced with the possibility of being the executioner as well. The question is, when does it become acceptable to kill someone, especially in a land where everyone has the right to bear arms, AND the right to due process?
As a Canadian, the last thing I want is a bunch of untrained individuals playing cops and robbers by their own rules. The term "self-defence" has many a definition. While some people will not take such drastic action, others will shoot first and ask (think) later. And although I don't believe that people should open their arms to being victimized, I don't believe that everyone who owns a gun, really understands what the law sees as self-defense, and may not be able to tell whether or not their lives are actually being threatened. And it does matter. Even if you don't care about the home invaders, you should care about what happens after you pull the trigger. Self-defense is an extremely difficult thing to prove in court. If you want to avoid a life-sentence, you have to prove that your life was in immediate danger. Meaning, that not only does that guy have to be coming at you with a knife, but you have to be able to prove that he was trying to kill you with it. "He said he was going to kill me" is not enough. There's also the people who believe that "if someone breaks into my house, they deserve what they get" while no American court will sentence someone to death for a simple B&E.
Ok, so maybe you know what the difference is. You have a gun, and you're not going to use it unless you absolutely have to. I used to believe this was ok, until I watched a certain episode of "I survived", which is a show where people tell their true survival stories. In this episode there was a couple whose home was broken into by a meth addict. They obviously survived, but it was not because of the rifle they possessed.In fact, the intruder was in their home for more than an hour before they woke up and realized what was happening. By then, the junky had already found the couple's rifle, and used it to hold them captive, until the morning when they were supposed to head to the bank and withdraw all the money from their account. They managed to get away, after the husband wrestled with the intruder, allowing his wife to flee. He fled soon there after. Somehow, the couple forgot about their children (the ones they wanted to protect with the gun), and the cops had to go in afterwards to retrieve them. They were all ok, but it could have turned out a lot worse. The fact that they fled the house without their children is a great example of how people behave in a "push comes to shove" situation. You can plan all you want, and arm yourself to the teeth, you just simply don't know how shit will pan out in an emergency. Prior to breaking into the home, that intruder was unarmed. His plan was probably to go in, find something of value, and leave. He was a meth addict, obviously only wanting money. It most likely would not have escalated to that extent had he not found the couple's gun, to use as leverage. They are so lucky the intruder didn't kill them or their kids.
Owning a gun will not guarantee your safety. The more restrictions on gun ownership, the less gun related crime per capita. Simple. It doesn't remove it completely, but it's lower. When you're talking about human life, any decrease in that statistic is significant.
Personal protection. It seems to be the popular consensus, that if you own a firearm, and are trained to use it, that you and your family will live a rape, theft, and invasion free life. Yeah, it's true, the cops can't always get there in time, but is that reason enough to take the law into your own hands?
And that's exactly what it is. When you purchase a gun, and prepare yourself to use it if you have to, you are taking on a huge responsibility. The moment you point that firearm at a would-be intruder, you become the cops, the jury, and may be faced with the possibility of being the executioner as well. The question is, when does it become acceptable to kill someone, especially in a land where everyone has the right to bear arms, AND the right to due process?
As a Canadian, the last thing I want is a bunch of untrained individuals playing cops and robbers by their own rules. The term "self-defence" has many a definition. While some people will not take such drastic action, others will shoot first and ask (think) later. And although I don't believe that people should open their arms to being victimized, I don't believe that everyone who owns a gun, really understands what the law sees as self-defense, and may not be able to tell whether or not their lives are actually being threatened. And it does matter. Even if you don't care about the home invaders, you should care about what happens after you pull the trigger. Self-defense is an extremely difficult thing to prove in court. If you want to avoid a life-sentence, you have to prove that your life was in immediate danger. Meaning, that not only does that guy have to be coming at you with a knife, but you have to be able to prove that he was trying to kill you with it. "He said he was going to kill me" is not enough. There's also the people who believe that "if someone breaks into my house, they deserve what they get" while no American court will sentence someone to death for a simple B&E.
Ok, so maybe you know what the difference is. You have a gun, and you're not going to use it unless you absolutely have to. I used to believe this was ok, until I watched a certain episode of "I survived", which is a show where people tell their true survival stories. In this episode there was a couple whose home was broken into by a meth addict. They obviously survived, but it was not because of the rifle they possessed.In fact, the intruder was in their home for more than an hour before they woke up and realized what was happening. By then, the junky had already found the couple's rifle, and used it to hold them captive, until the morning when they were supposed to head to the bank and withdraw all the money from their account. They managed to get away, after the husband wrestled with the intruder, allowing his wife to flee. He fled soon there after. Somehow, the couple forgot about their children (the ones they wanted to protect with the gun), and the cops had to go in afterwards to retrieve them. They were all ok, but it could have turned out a lot worse. The fact that they fled the house without their children is a great example of how people behave in a "push comes to shove" situation. You can plan all you want, and arm yourself to the teeth, you just simply don't know how shit will pan out in an emergency. Prior to breaking into the home, that intruder was unarmed. His plan was probably to go in, find something of value, and leave. He was a meth addict, obviously only wanting money. It most likely would not have escalated to that extent had he not found the couple's gun, to use as leverage. They are so lucky the intruder didn't kill them or their kids.
Owning a gun will not guarantee your safety. The more restrictions on gun ownership, the less gun related crime per capita. Simple. It doesn't remove it completely, but it's lower. When you're talking about human life, any decrease in that statistic is significant.
22 Comments