Although..the Anti Gun lobby will continue to say..Heller Vs D.C. is not a land mark case..when ever a case involving home defence and a gun..you can bet that decision will be brought up..especially if the boundaries of the States laws are fuzzy..as far as what constitutes the right to self defence in ones home...

also..Sotomayor..was asked if she thought (do you think you have a right to protect yourself in your own home) she dodged the question.


My question is...what do you think?..you are at home..minding your own business

and your home is broken into by armed assailants..do you have the right..to retrieve your firearm and defend your family,home and yourself..

I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one.

My personal opinion, is that I believe government does have the right to REGULATE guns. For example, I would like to see the loop hole closed that allows individuals to purchase at gun shows w/o a background check.

Say what you will, we both know that what I posted was right.

Dealers have to perform a background check. The only people that don't have to do a background check is private sellers, because they don't have the means. Someone going to a show to sell off a few of their dads old guns isn't the problem. The problem is that the criminals aren't being punished like they should, and that you can't profile because its "racist".

Law abiding citizens of my state have been disarmed at gun-point by the national guard on their own property while in their own homes. It can happen, and I am sure it will be attempted again.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.

(CNN) -- A rising Canadian folk singer was killed by coyotes this week in a national park in Nova Scotia, a park spokesman said Thursday.

Taylor Mitchell, 19, was at the beginning of the Skyline Trail in Cape Breton Highlands National Park on Tuesday afternoon when she was attacked, according to Chip Bird, the Parks Canada field unit superintendent for Cape Breton.

Bird said hikers saw the coyotes attacking Mitchell and called 911. She was airlifted to a hospital in Halifax, where she died about 12 hours later, he said.

You MUST be Canadian.

If someone has a gun pointed at you, the object isn't trying to draw and shoot them before they can shoot you. The best thing to do is to try and disarm them. It can be done, but it takes training

You MUST be Canadian. It's been my experience that most crooks adopt the "Spray & Pray" method of gunfighting. They aren't very accurate & definitly not very well trained in firearms use...even when shooting at each other. The homeowner has a DISTINCT advantage in knowing their own home...and how to defend it with a weapon they've practiced with.

On another note, guns are used for MORE than just home defense, they're also used to keep predatory animals at bay.

If Canucks were allowed to carry pistols, that young lady would likely be alive & healthy.

There aren't many predatory animals in urban North America, where you'll find the majority of pistol owners.

There aren't many predatory animals in urban North America, where you'll find the majority of pistol owners.

You do not know the circumstances about the attack, so you don't know if she would have lived if she had a pistol.

Also, it is quite shameful of those of you who are exploiting this tragedy to push your agenda on these forums.

^^ Did you notice how I listed 'RUN' as the first option in my ways of avoiding being wounded/killed when confronted by someone with a knife, bat, or other non-gun weapon? Unless the person had a weapon that could hit me at distance, my first response would be to get away from the person so that they could not reach me with it. This could not be done if the assailant has a gun. Thanks for assuming that I am overly brave/stupid, but disarming would be my last choice, regardless of the type of weapon.

As for the knife-fighting exercise, they showed you how difficult it is to avoid injury so that you would NOT get into a knife fight in the first place. Even if you 'win', then you are still almost certainly going to be seriously injured. I am well aware of this, and have no intention of attempting to disarm someone with a knife. However, assuming that I was aware that someone with a knife was intending me harm, then running may be effective. If they had a gun, running would not.

Let's say that you absolutely had no choice but to disarm the assailant. Which would you rather they have: A gun that they can shoot you with before you can even get to them and that will most likely cause serious or incapacitating bodily harm the very first use? Or a knife or a bat that they must get within a few feet to use AND causes less damage?

My example of the 'showdown' was also mainly in contradiction to the assertion that guns are justified because those without physical prowess can use them to protect themselves. While this is true, it works both ways. Someone who would be physically incapable of defending themselves against a stronger/faster aggressor COULD use a gun to defend themselves, but they COULD also use that same gun to victimize a stronger/faster person.

In addition, I was pointing out that having a gun would not aide you should you find yourself already faced with a drawn gun. I do not, and did not, believe that you should 'shoot them before they shoot you'. I was, in fact, ridiculing that mentality by pointing out that life is not a movie. If the assailant is dumb enough to stand next to you, and you are trained to disarm them.....then having a gun yourself would have no effect on your chances of success. If the assailant is not standing within arms reach, then you really don't have much of a chance. If you know of some secret way to disarm a gun-wielding attacker from distance (that is not from a movie), feel free to share.

I haven't read the whole thread but I'd guess someone brought up the utterly irrelevant claims of Professor Kleck. There is a simple way to break down the efficacy of gun control. The United States has the most unfettered access to firearms in the developed world and unequivocally has the greatest gun violence problem in the developed world. Period. When that statistical reality changes get back to us, K?

If a 5 foot tall, 110 pound person is intent on doing me harm, I would MUCH rather they have a bat, or a knife, or basically any type of weapon that is not a gun. Without a gun, I may have a decent chance at either out running or disarming the assailant. With a gun, I would just be dead. Even with an evenly matched opponent, my odds of survival would be much greater if they do not have a gun.

It's been my experience that many people with guns think they are skilled with them, and suffer the consequences for that false presumption when trying to defend their home against the supposedly inferior and disadvantaged crook.