crazyjackrabbit
CGN Regular
Because of the heavy parkas, long underwear and toques?
Lol... Awesome..
Also thanks for posting this article.. Much appreciated
An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power
- Thread starter Melnibonean
- Start date
Lol... Awesome..
Also thanks for posting this article.. Much appreciated
I watched most of it. What I see this as is bringing scientific and medical facts to trauma gunshot wounds and it was very interesting. The best solution, of course, is to neither get shot or have to shoot someone. And the stats show you are more likely to die in a MV accident than be killed by gunfire. Thanks for posting the video.
Has anyone ever used a pistol to fight their way to the rifle (or shotgun) they never should have left behind? That would be an excruciatingly weak reason to have a pistol.
The pistol is for concealed carry, or as a convenient sidearm.
Personally, I have been a firearms advocate for 25 years. Although we live in Canada and the use for self protection is not as a requirement as in other countries, I would NEVER use a firearm for self protection. I have two dogs, and a trusty bat that will do the job. Even in the states it is risky as the criminal that uses a firearm will get a prison term whereas the citizen that will shoot a criminal to protect life will incur about $100,000-$200,000 in lawyer fees. Then there is the risk of law suits from family members of the poor misunderstood perpetrator. Your life is destroyed financially if you discharge a firearm for self defence. I am just so glad that I live in Canada where the threat is minimal.
- Location
- The Orion Arm
Has there ever been a case in the US where the (lethal) justifiable use of a firearm by a civilian resulted in a successful civil suit?
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Here is a prime example of the success the liberal left has had with social engineering. Evil and violence can come to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Neither political or geographic boundaries provide an exception. The fact that self defense from criminal violence is enshrined both legally and constitutionally in Canada acknowledges this fact, otherwise the premise of self defense would be excluded from the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The idea that simply because we're Canadians, we would not use the very tools that are specifically designed to effectively defend individuals from threats of violence, suggests we're simultaneously conceited and foolish. Not everyone is physically able to mount a viable defense against physically or numerically superior attackers. No one can always have his dog(s) at his side. Legal difficulties and costs will be incurred by anyone whose actions injure or kill another, whether in armed combat or hand to hand. If you're armed with a gun when you're attacked, you have a much better chance of prevailing than if you're armed with an improvised weapon. Certainly there are no guarantees to the outcome of a fight, but one must first survive if he is to have post-action legal problems.
Last edited:
And I would never tell you that you should.
I sure would, though, because if things are so screwed up that I think a realistic step is to use deadly force, then whether it costs me an absurd amount of money down the road is the least of my concerns. I'm employing a firearm because I want myself or a loved one to be alive thirty seconds from now, and anything else is totally unimportant to me.
If there isn't a serious problem that I think I need deadly force to resolve, I'm leaving my guns out of the equation.
You said it better than I have. Very good points considering the recent "Legalise" thread that grew out of the Sask. farmers armed thread. LEOs face this same battle too. Sure, career problems and transfers to undesirable posts aren't the same as me losing my house to legal bills, but all negative impacts.
